Science > Physics > What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ???
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Y.Porat" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2006 11:56:24 PM |
| Object: |
What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
While people dont stop talking about the double slit experiment
they talk about a 'single photon' that is able to pass through two
slits
my question is :
what is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a SINGLE PHOTON ????
is it an unequivocal (including quantitative ) definition say as the
definition of the electron or proton???!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
22 Aug 2006 01:10:25 PM |
|
|
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
Our current best understanding of particle physics comes from quantum
field theory. A classical field theory involves fields, which have a
value at every point in spacetime, much like a wave on a string is
defined by a displacement of the string at every point along the length
of the string. In practise this description is hard to work with, so a
useful tool is to rewrite the configuration of the wave as a sum of
waves with a well-defined wavelength (ie take the fourier transform of
the wave).
Our universe is described by a number of such fields, such as the
electomagnetic field, the electron field, the quark field etc..
In the quantum theory the wave configuration becomes probabilistic. In
general it is very difficult to make exact predictions, however if we
take coupling constants (such as charges) to be zero, then the theory
is solvable. Applying the rules of quantum mechanics, we find that the
energy associated with a given wavevector can only take discrete values
- in the case of the electromagnetic field, the allowed energies for a
wave of frequency f are hf(n+1/2), where n can take the value 0,1,2...
the calculation is identical to the calculation of the allowed energies
of a quantum harmonic oscillator, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
So the concept of a "photon" arises because in the free theory the
energies associated with a given freqency are discrete: if the energy
for a wavevector takes the value hf(n+1/2) then we say that there are n
photons with that wavevector. However this description is only
approximately true, since the real theory has non-zero coupling
constants. In a theory with strong coupling this simple description
breaks down. It is not really true for example to say that a proton
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
Y.Porat wrote:
While people dont stop talking about the double slit experiment
they talk about a 'single photon' that is able to pass through two
slits
my question is :
what is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a SINGLE PHOTON ????
is it an unequivocal (including quantitative ) definition say as the
definition of the electron or proton???!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
23 Aug 2006 09:35:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
Our current best understanding of particle physics comes from quantum
field theory. A classical field theory involves fields, which have a
value at every point in spacetime, much like a wave on a string is
defined by a displacement of the string at every point along the length
of the string. In practise this description is hard to work with, so a
useful tool is to rewrite the configuration of the wave as a sum of
waves with a well-defined wavelength (ie take the fourier transform of
the wave).
Our universe is described by a number of such fields, such as the
electomagnetic field, the electron field, the quark field etc..
In the quantum theory the wave configuration becomes probabilistic. In
general it is very difficult to make exact predictions, however if we
take coupling constants (such as charges) to be zero, then the theory
is solvable. Applying the rules of quantum mechanics, we find that the
energy associated with a given wavevector can only take discrete values
- in the case of the electromagnetic field, the allowed energies for a
wave of frequency f are hf(n+1/2), where n can take the value 0,1,2...
the calculation is identical to the calculation of the allowed energies
of a quantum harmonic oscillator, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
So the concept of a "photon" arises because in the free theory the
energies associated with a given freqency are discrete: if the energy
for a wavevector takes the value hf(n+1/2) then we say that there are n
photons with that wavevector. However this description is only
approximately true, since the real theory has non-zero coupling
constants. In a theory with strong coupling this simple description
breaks down. It is not really true for example to say that a proton
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
is not a good enough definition to tell us that is a single photon
actually that definition is very much misleading !!
and my suggestion is to take a photon with just one single wave length
as a 'single photon'
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
23 Aug 2006 09:47:21 AM |
|
|
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
Gaa! No, hf is NOT the energy during one second. It has units of
energy, not power. What hf is is the difference in successive energy
levels of waves with a given wavevector. Seconds do not come into it.
is not a good enough definition to tell us that is a single photon
actually that definition is very much misleading !!
and my suggestion is to take a photon with just one single wave length
as a 'single photon'
Your definition seems to be circular. How can you talk about "a photon"
with any property unless you already know what a single photon means?
-Rotwang
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
23 Aug 2006 12:28:34 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
sg552@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
Our current best understanding of particle physics comes from quantum
field theory. A classical field theory involves fields, which have a
value at every point in spacetime, much like a wave on a string is
defined by a displacement of the string at every point along the length
of the string. In practise this description is hard to work with, so a
useful tool is to rewrite the configuration of the wave as a sum of
waves with a well-defined wavelength (ie take the fourier transform of
the wave).
Our universe is described by a number of such fields, such as the
electomagnetic field, the electron field, the quark field etc..
In the quantum theory the wave configuration becomes probabilistic. In
general it is very difficult to make exact predictions, however if we
take coupling constants (such as charges) to be zero, then the theory
is solvable. Applying the rules of quantum mechanics, we find that the
energy associated with a given wavevector can only take discrete values
- in the case of the electromagnetic field, the allowed energies for a
wave of frequency f are hf(n+1/2), where n can take the value 0,1,2...
the calculation is identical to the calculation of the allowed energies
of a quantum harmonic oscillator, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
So the concept of a "photon" arises because in the free theory the
energies associated with a given freqency are discrete: if the energy
for a wavevector takes the value hf(n+1/2) then we say that there are n
photons with that wavevector. However this description is only
approximately true, since the real theory has non-zero coupling
constants. In a theory with strong coupling this simple description
breaks down. It is not really true for example to say that a proton
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
Fundamental error. hf is NOT the energy during one second.
Porat, your understanding of basic concepts is ridiculously corrupt.
A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds.
Now if you don't know how a 200 Hz sound can be fired for both a
duration of 5 seconds and 0.05 seconds, then this may be a clue to how
far back you have to trace your steps to start again.
PD
is not a good enough definition to tell us that is a single photon
actually that definition is very much misleading !!
and my suggestion is to take a photon with just one single wave length
as a 'single photon'
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
23 Aug 2006 11:28:15 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
sg552@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
Our current best understanding of particle physics comes from quantum
field theory. A classical field theory involves fields, which have a
value at every point in spacetime, much like a wave on a string is
defined by a displacement of the string at every point along the length
of the string. In practise this description is hard to work with, so a
useful tool is to rewrite the configuration of the wave as a sum of
waves with a well-defined wavelength (ie take the fourier transform of
the wave).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
So the concept of a "photon" arises because in the free theory the
energies associated with a given freqency are discrete: if the energy
for a wavevector takes the value hf(n+1/2) then we say that there are n
photons with that wavevector. However this description is only
approximately true, since the real theory has non-zero coupling
constants. In a theory with strong coupling this simple description
breaks down. It is not really true for example to say that a proton
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
Fundamental error. hf is NOT the energy during one second.
Porat, your understanding of basic concepts is ridiculously corrupt.
A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds.
Now if you don't know how a 200 Hz sound can be fired for both a
duration of 5 seconds and 0.05 seconds, then this may be a clue to how
far back you have to trace your steps to start again.
PD
--------------------------------
so according to you
the energy emmited during one second is the same as emmitted during
two seconds ??(withthe same f )
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
it is a wave that has just one SINGLE wave length
not many wave lengths withte same wave lenght but just one of themand
not rhe huge number of waves emmited in one second
a single for me is the one that grwes up sinusidialy just once and no
more
(not th elong procesion of th ecurves line that goes up and down
from plus to minus a hug number of times during a whole second
bu tthe one that is created (or lastes ) in the fraction of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
is not a good enough definition to tell us that is a single photon
actually that definition is very much misleading !!
and my suggestion is to take a photon with just one single wave length
as a 'single photon'
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 01:13:48 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
sg552@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
Our current best understanding of particle physics comes from quantum
field theory. A classical field theory involves fields, which have a
value at every point in spacetime, much like a wave on a string is
defined by a displacement of the string at every point along the length
of the string. In practise this description is hard to work with, so a
useful tool is to rewrite the configuration of the wave as a sum of
waves with a well-defined wavelength (ie take the fourier transform of
the wave).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
So the concept of a "photon" arises because in the free theory the
energies associated with a given freqency are discrete: if the energy
for a wavevector takes the value hf(n+1/2) then we say that there are n
photons with that wavevector. However this description is only
approximately true, since the real theory has non-zero coupling
constants. In a theory with strong coupling this simple description
breaks down. It is not really true for example to say that a proton
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
Fundamental error. hf is NOT the energy during one second.
Porat, your understanding of basic concepts is ridiculously corrupt.
A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds.
Now if you don't know how a 200 Hz sound can be fired for both a
duration of 5 seconds and 0.05 seconds, then this may be a clue to how
far back you have to trace your steps to start again.
PD
--------------------------------
so according to you
the energy emmited during one second is the same as emmitted during
two seconds ??(withthe same f )
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
He didn't even mention energy.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
it is a wave that has just one SINGLE wave length
not many wave lengths withte same wave lenght but just one of themand
not rhe huge number of waves emmited in one second
a single for me is the one that grwes up sinusidialy just once and no
more
(not th elong procesion of th ecurves line that goes up and down
from plus to minus a hug number of times during a whole second
bu tthe one that is created (or lastes ) in the fraction of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
A single photon is created when an electron which is bound within an
atom makes a quantum jump (which is instantaneous or near enough, not 1
second) from an energy level to a lower energy level.
If we take the simple case of a hydrogen atom, then the frequency of
the photon can be given by the equation:
f = (f_C / 2) * (alpha^2 / n_f^2 - alpha^2 / n_i^2)
and the energy of the photon by:
E = (h * f_C / 2) * (alpha^2 / n_f^2 - alpha^2 / n_i^2)
where,
f is the frequency of the photon,
E is the energy of the photon,
h is Planck's constant,
f_C is the Compton frequency of the electron,
alpha is the fine structure constant,
n_f is the final energy level of the electron, and
n_i is the initial energy level of the electron.
Both n_f and n_i are integers.
By the way,
h * f_C / 2 = hbar * omega_C / 2
and,
E = hbar * omega / 2
is the energy associated with the ground state of a quantum harmonic
oscillator.
A single photon which is absorbed by a single electron will cause that
electron to jump to a higher energy level. If the frequency of the
single photon is high enough, then the electron will be emitted from
the atom.
A single high frequency photon goes in, a single electron comes out.
Is that clear enough for you to understand?
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
is not a good enough definition to tell us that is a single photon
actually that definition is very much misleading !!
and my suggestion is to take a photon with just one single wave length
as a 'single photon'
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 03:18:40 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
sg552@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
again.
PD
--------------------------------
so according to you
the energy emmited during one second is the same as emmitted during
two seconds ??(withthe same f )
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
-----------------------
Golden Bohre
that remark of PD is completely irerrelevant
it is exactly as if i would say in that context:
h is th ePlank constant anf f is ferquency
ie to reinvent the wheel
you jumped too soon before reading the rest of my post !!
-----------
He didn't even mention energy.
very bad that he didnt mension energy !!
and even didnt mensionmass units .......
2
di dPD nominated you as his lawyer ??
cant you wait till he will reply ??
----------------
-----------
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
again not very relevant
now why do **you mension now energy while PD didnt ?? (:-)
that is generally energy that is emmited by Atoms
it can be from electro9ns it can be from Neutrons
and others that even you still dont know and i do !!......
------------
------------
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
it is a wave that has just one SINGLE wave length
not many wave lengths withte same wave lenght but just one of themand
not rhe huge number of waves emmited in one second
a single for me is the one that grwes up sinusidialy just once and no
more
(not th elong procesion of th ecurves line that goes up and down
from plus to minus a hug number of times during a whole second
bu tthe one that is created (or lastes ) in the fraction of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
A single photon is created when an electron which is bound within an
atom makes a quantum jump (which is instantaneous or near enough, not 1
second) from an energy level to a lower energy level.
-------------
now i was asking you a question and you forgot to answer
may be not accidentally you forgot :
here is my question:
if we radiate a photon eelctric cell by a high frequency wave of
frequency f
during **one second*
it (the cell ) will emit and electron
now if we take the same frequency wave and radiate the photon eelctric
cell
only half a second will it emmit as well elctrrons
if yes
can that hf be considered the quantitative definition of
A SINGLE PHOTON ???
)please read again the title that i agve to this thread )
ps
your definition of a single photon is still not defined quantitvely
because of many reasons
1 there are many photons that will emit a sinle electron frm e one
lebvel to another
2 you still dont have a prove that a single electron is doing that job
so your definition is completely NOT UNEQUIVOCAL !!!
---------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 04:00:03 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
sg552@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Contrary to what many replies seem to be saying, I do not think that
the concept is actually that well-defined theoretically. Allow me to
explain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
again.
PD
--------------------------------
so according to you
the energy emmited during one second is the same as emmitted during
two seconds ??(withthe same f )
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
-----------------------
Golden Bohre
that remark of PD is completely irerrelevant
It is totally relevant, but for some reason, you seem unable to
comprehend why.
it is exactly as if i would say in that context:
h is th ePlank constant anf f is ferquency
ie to reinvent the wheel
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
you jumped too soon before reading the rest of my post !!
-----------
He didn't even mention energy.
very bad that he didnt mension energy !!
and even didnt mensionmass units .......
He didn't mention energy because he was talking about the frequency of
a sound.
He didn't mention mass units because he was taking about the frequency
of a sound.
2
di dPD nominated you as his lawyer ??
cant you wait till he will reply ??
He will reply when he wants to reply.
I will reply when I want to.
----------------
-----------
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
again not very relevant
now why do **you mension now energy while PD didnt ?? (:-)
Because you were talking about energy being emitted from something.
that is generally energy that is emmited by Atoms
it can be from electro9ns it can be from Neutrons
and others that even you still dont know and i do !!......
------------
------------
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
it is a wave that has just one SINGLE wave length
not many wave lengths withte same wave lenght but just one of themand
not rhe huge number of waves emmited in one second
a single for me is the one that grwes up sinusidialy just once and no
more
(not th elong procesion of th ecurves line that goes up and down
from plus to minus a hug number of times during a whole second
bu tthe one that is created (or lastes ) in the fraction of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
A single photon is created when an electron which is bound within an
atom makes a quantum jump (which is instantaneous or near enough, not 1
second) from an energy level to a lower energy level.
-------------
now i was asking you a question and you forgot to answer
may be not accidentally you forgot :
here is my question:
if we radiate a photon eelctric cell by a high frequency wave of
frequency f
during **one second*
it (the cell ) will emit and electron
If the frequency is high enough then an electron will emitted.
now if we take the same frequency wave and radiate the photon eelctric
cell
only half a second will it emmit as well elctrrons
Yes.
if yes
can that hf be considered the quantitative definition of
A SINGLE PHOTON ???
Yes.
)please read again the title that i agve to this thread )
ps
your definition of a single photon is still not defined quantitvely
because of many reasons
1 there are many photons that will emit a sinle electron frm e one
lebvel to another
Using your logic, we would be unable to define an individual person
just because there are many different people with many different
personalities.
A single photon does not mean that all single photons must have the
same energy, there are an infinite number of single photons of varying
energy.
If I have a box which is 10 cm^3 and you have a box which is 1 m^3,
does that mean that you do not have a single box, but have in fact got
a lot of little boxes each 10 cm^3?
Of course not, you are just being stupid.
2 you still dont have a prove that a single electron is doing that job
so your definition is completely NOT UNEQUIVOCAL !!!
I thought we were talking about photons.
But you never can tell with you.
---------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 05:50:54 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
again.
PD
--------------------------------
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
-----------------------
Golden Bohre
that remark of PD is completely irerrelevant
It is totally relevant, but for some reason, you seem unable to
comprehend why.
it is exactly as if i would say in that context:
h is th ePlank constant anf f is ferquency
ie to reinvent the wheel
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
------------------
we didnt speak about sound waves
we speak about light waves
it is a big differnce
it has a cpmpletely diferent energy definition
a wave definition has nothing to do with h
it is a completely differner physicsl phenomena !!!so PD s
introduction of sound waves
was a uusual a system of trying to confuse by obfuscation !!
and sliding the issue sideways !!
----------------
-----
you jumped too soon before reading the rest of my post !!
-----------
He didn't even mention energy.
very bad that he didnt mension energy !!
and even didnt mensionmass units .......
He didn't mention energy because he was talking about the frequency of
a sound.
He didn't mention mass units because he was taking about the frequency
of a sound.
see above it is obvious that it is not what i was ytakiing about
see again the titles:
**do you see tyhere the word PHOTON ** ??
so waht the hell he starts to talk about sound waves ??
----------
di dPD nominated you as his lawyer ??
cant you wait till he will reply ??
He will reply when he wants to reply.
I will reply when I want to.
----------
ok its obvious
yet it is obvious that PD is not responding and not appositely !!
----------------
-----------
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
again not very relevant
now why do **you mension now energy while PD didnt ?? (:-)
Because you were talking about energy being emitted from something.
more acurate i an talking about the smallest unit of photon energy
rariated from something
it is more clear now ??
if you take the hf you realise that no natter of where or from waht
it is always the h times something ie the h has something todo with my
question !!
actuaslly h/c^2 is the smallest photon unit of photons no matetr
waht is their origine
and that is waht i am striding to.
btw can you tell me why i am always typing 'waht instead of' 'what' 'no
matetr how
attentive i will be (:-) is it dyslexia ?
-----------
that is generally energy that is emmited by Atoms
it can be from electro9ns it can be from Neutrons
and others that even you still dont know and i do !!......
------------
------------
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
it is a wave that has just one SINGLE wave length
not many wave lengths withte same wave lenght but just one of themand
not rhe huge number of waves emmited in one second
a single for me is the one that grwes up sinusidialy just once and no
more
(not th elong procesion of th ecurves line that goes up and down
from plus to minus a hug number of times during a whole second
bu tthe one that is created (or lastes ) in the fraction of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
-------------
now i was asking you a question and you forgot to answer
may be not accidentally you forgot :
here is my question:
if we radiate a photon eelctric cell by a high frequency wave of
frequency f
during **one second*
it (the cell ) will emit and electron
If the frequency is high enough then an electron will emitted.
now if we take the same frequency wave and radiate the photon eelctric
cell
only half a second will it emmit as well elctrrons
Yes.
----------
alow me to smile now a big smile !!!!!
we are talking about a single unit
and you give me not a single but MANY SINGLES
is it not an intrisic contradiction to the definition of single
or may be i had to stress that i am looking for the SMALLEST SINGLE?
i thought it i sobvious !!
we are talking physics and are looking for the basic of the photon
so amy be i was not unequivocal enough??
if so i appologise
but hope i made myself clear enough
jusr eemenbe r that my7 secondary aim was to claim that
in the double stil experinet for photons
people talk about a single photon while they have no idea waht is the
definition of a 'single photon
so themain point is that
actually
THERE ARE THERE MANY PHOTONS AND NOT REALLY
(physically not mathematically artifact ) A *SINGLE PHOTON!**
and if so the enigma od doubel slit is not actually an enigma
iow it is much simpler than posed misleadingly !!
----------
if yes
can that hf be considered the quantitative definition of
A SINGLE PHOTON ???
Yes.see above
-------------------
)please read again the title that i agve to this thread )
ps
your definition of a single photon is still not defined quantitvely
because of many reasons
1 there are many photons that will emit a sinle electron frm e one
lebvel to another
Using your logic, we would be unable to define an individual person
just because there are many different people with many different
personalities.
A single photon does not mean that all single photons must have the
same energy, there are an infinite number of single photons of varying
energy.
If I have a box which is 10 cm^3 and you have a box which is 1 m^3,
does that mean that you do not have a single box, but have in fact got
a lot of little boxes each 10 cm^3?
Of course not, you are just being stupid.
see above
i was looking tothe SALLEST UNIT
was it not obvious ??
now if it is obvious now
we can satrt from the start ...................ie a better unequivocal
start
so ???
what is the quantitative definition of the smallest single photon??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------
2 you still dont have a prove that a single electron is doing that job
so your definition is completely NOT UNEQUIVOCAL !!!
I thought we were talking about photons.
But you never can tell with you.
---------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 06:49:00 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
again.
PD
--------------------------------
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
-----------------------
Golden Bohre
that remark of PD is completely irerrelevant
It is totally relevant, but for some reason, you seem unable to
comprehend why.
it is exactly as if i would say in that context:
h is th ePlank constant anf f is ferquency
ie to reinvent the wheel
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
------------------
we didnt speak about sound waves
we speak about light waves
it is a big differnce
it has a cpmpletely diferent energy definition
a wave definition has nothing to do with h
it is a completely differner physicsl phenomena !!!so PD s
introduction of sound waves
was a uusual a system of trying to confuse by obfuscation !!
and sliding the issue sideways !!
----------------
-----
you jumped too soon before reading the rest of my post !!
-----------
He didn't even mention energy.
very bad that he didnt mension energy !!
and even didnt mensionmass units .......
He didn't mention energy because he was talking about the frequency of
a sound.
He didn't mention mass units because he was taking about the frequency
of a sound.
see above it is obvious that it is not what i was ytakiing about
see again the titles:
**do you see tyhere the word PHOTON ** ??
so waht the hell he starts to talk about sound waves ??
----------
di dPD nominated you as his lawyer ??
cant you wait till he will reply ??
He will reply when he wants to reply.
I will reply when I want to.
----------
ok its obvious
yet it is obvious that PD is not responding and not appositely !!
----------------
-----------
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
again not very relevant
now why do **you mension now energy while PD didnt ?? (:-)
Because you were talking about energy being emitted from something.
more acurate i an talking about the smallest unit of photon energy
rariated from something
it is more clear now ??
if you take the hf you realise that no natter of where or from waht
it is always the h times something ie the h has something todo with my
question !!
actuaslly h/c^2 is the smallest photon unit of photons no matetr
waht is their origine
and that is waht i am striding to.
btw can you tell me why i am always typing 'waht instead of' 'what' 'no
matetr how
attentive i will be (:-) is it dyslexia ?
-----------
that is generally energy that is emmited by Atoms
it can be from electro9ns it can be from Neutrons
and others that even you still dont know and i do !!......
------------
------------
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
it is a wave that has just one SINGLE wave length
not many wave lengths withte same wave lenght but just one of themand
not rhe huge number of waves emmited in one second
a single for me is the one that grwes up sinusidialy just once and no
more
(not th elong procesion of th ecurves line that goes up and down
from plus to minus a hug number of times during a whole second
bu tthe one that is created (or lastes ) in the fraction of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
-------------
now i was asking you a question and you forgot to answer
may be not accidentally you forgot :
here is my question:
if we radiate a photon eelctric cell by a high frequency wave of
frequency f
during **one second*
it (the cell ) will emit and electron
If the frequency is high enough then an electron will emitted.
now if we take the same frequency wave and radiate the photon eelctric
cell
only half a second will it emmit as well elctrrons
Yes.
----------
alow me to smile now a big smile !!!!!
we are talking about a single unit
and you give me not a single but MANY SINGLES
is it not an intrisic contradiction to the definition of single
or may be i had to stress that i am looking for the SMALLEST SINGLE?
i thought it i sobvious !!
we are talking physics and are looking for the basic of the photon
so amy be i was not unequivocal enough??
if so i appologise
but hope i made myself clear enough
jusr eemenbe r that my7 secondary aim was to claim that
in the double stil experinet for photons
people talk about a single photon while they have no idea waht is the
definition of a 'single photon
so themain point is that
actually
THERE ARE THERE MANY PHOTONS AND NOT REALLY
(physically not mathematically artifact ) A *SINGLE PHOTON!**
and if so the enigma od doubel slit is not actually an enigma
iow it is much simpler than posed misleadingly !!
----------
if yes
can that hf be considered the quantitative definition of
A SINGLE PHOTON ???
Yes.see above
-------------------
)please read again the title that i agve to this thread )
ps
your definition of a single photon is still not defined quantitvely
because of many reasons
1 there are many photons that will emit a sinle electron frm e one
lebvel to another
Using your logic, we would be unable to define an individual person
just because there are many different people with many different
personalities.
A single photon does not mean that all single photons must have the
same energy, there are an infinite number of single photons of varying
energy.
If I have a box which is 10 cm^3 and you have a box which is 1 m^3,
does that mean that you do not have a single box, but have in fact got
a lot of little boxes each 10 cm^3?
Of course not, you are just being stupid.
see above
i was looking tothe SALLEST UNIT
was it not obvious ??
now if it is obvious now
we can satrt from the start ...................ie a better unequivocal
start
so ???
what is the quantitative definition of the smallest single photon??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------
2 you still dont have a prove that a single electron is doing that job
so your definition is completely NOT UNEQUIVOCAL !!!
I thought we were talking about photons.
But you never can tell with you.
---------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
As usual, this is getting nowhere.
What you are now asking about, whether you realise it or not, is what
is the lowest possible frequency.
You seem to think that the answer to this question is 1 Hz.
Why couldn't we have 0.5 Hz?
Why couldn't we have 1 * 10^-20 Hz?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 07:27:17 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
again.
PD
--------------------------------
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
-----------------------
Golden Bohre
that remark of PD is completely irerrelevant
It is totally relevant, but for some reason, you seem unable to
comprehend why.
it is exactly as if i would say in that context:
h is th ePlank constant anf f is ferquency
ie to reinvent the wheel
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
------------------
we didnt speak about sound waves
we speak about light waves
it is a big differnce
it has a cpmpletely diferent energy definition
a wave definition has nothing to do with h
it is a completely differner physicsl phenomena !!!so PD s
introduction of sound waves
was a uusual a system of trying to confuse by obfuscation !!
and sliding the issue sideways !!
----------------
-----
you jumped too soon before reading the rest of my post !!
-----------
He didn't even mention energy.
very bad that he didnt mension energy !!
and even didnt mensionmass units .......
He didn't mention energy because he was talking about the frequency of
a sound.
He didn't mention mass units because he was taking about the frequency
of a sound.
see above it is obvious that it is not what i was ytakiing about
see again the titles:
**do you see tyhere the word PHOTON ** ??
so waht the hell he starts to talk about sound waves ??
----------
di dPD nominated you as his lawyer ??
cant you wait till he will reply ??
He will reply when he wants to reply.
I will reply when I want to.
----------
ok its obvious
yet it is obvious that PD is not responding and not appositely !!
----------------
-----------
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
again not very relevant
now why do **you mension now energy while PD didnt ?? (:-)
Because you were talking about energy being emitted from something.
more acurate i an talking about the smallest unit of photon energy
rariated from something
it is more clear now ??
if you take the hf you realise that no natter of where or from waht
it is always the h times something ie the h has something todo with my
question !!
actuaslly h/c^2 is the smallest photon unit of photons no matetr
waht is their origine
and that is waht i am striding to.
btw can you tell me why i am always typing 'waht instead of' 'what' 'no
matetr how
attentive i will be (:-) is it dyslexia ?
-----------
that is generally energy that is emmited by Atoms
it can be from electro9ns it can be from Neutrons
and others that even you still dont know and i do !!......
------------
------------
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
-------------
now i was asking you a question and you forgot to answer
may be not accidentally you forgot :
here is my question:
if we radiate a photon eelctric cell by a high frequency wave of
----------
alow me to smile now a big smile !!!!!
we are talking about a single unit
and you give me not a single but MANY SINGLES
is it not an intrisic contradiction to the definition of single
or may be i had to stress that i am looking for the SMALLEST SINGLE?
i thought it i sobvious !!
we are talking physics and are looking for the basic of the photon
so amy be i was not unequivocal enough??
if so i appologise
but hope i made myself clear enough
jusr eemenbe r that my7 secondary aim was to claim that
in the double stil experinet for photons
people talk about a single photon while they have no idea waht is the
definition of a 'single photon
so themain point is that
actually
THERE ARE THERE MANY PHOTONS AND NOT REALLY
(physically not mathematically artifact ) A *SINGLE PHOTON!**
and if so the enigma od doubel slit is not actually an enigma
iow it is much simpler than posed misleadingly !!
----------
if yes
can that hf be considered the quantitative definition of
A SINGLE PHOTON ???
Yes.see above
-------------------
Of course not, you are just being stupid.
see above
i was looking tothe SALLEST UNIT
was it not obvious ??
now if it is obvious now
we can satrt from the start ...................ie a better unequivocal
start
so ???
what is the quantitative definition of the smallest single photon??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------
---------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
As usual, this is getting nowhere.
What you are now asking about, whether you realise it or not, is what
is the lowest possible frequency.
----------------------
no
youstill dont get me !!
i mean the smallest not along one second
but theslalest that lasts 1/f seconds !!
do you know why
because as i said many times the fofinition depending on one second
is a human artiafct it is not naturs 'artifact'
the phtoon that is created (or acording to you ) is lasting and
detected during 1/f second is natures 'artifact' (creation) !!!!
did i made muself clear now
is it an unequivocal definition ??
-------------
You seem to think that the answer to this question is 1 Hz.
Why couldn't we have 0.5 Hz?
Why couldn't we have 1 * 10^-20 Hz?
----------------------
see above
2 btw
0.5 or 10 ^-20 Hertz are not found experimentally !!
only in your paper
so i thing that my definition is much closer to exoermental data !!
ps i wonder why is it that only Igor - got me much before
and much quicker --than all the others .......
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
...............
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 04:09:22 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
contains 3 quarks: what it really contains is a bloody mess which is
not well-understood analytically.
-------------------
anyway i think you agree with me that hf ie the energy during one
second
again.
PD
--------------------------------
Do you understand english?
PD said,
"A 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 5 seconds has the *same*
frequency as a 200 Hz sound fired for a duration of 0.05 seconds."
-----------------------
Golden Bohre
that remark of PD is completely irerrelevant
It is totally relevant, but for some reason, you seem unable to
comprehend why.
it is exactly as if i would say in that context:
h is th ePlank constant anf f is ferquency
ie to reinvent the wheel
I have no idea what you are talking about now.
------------------
we didnt speak about sound waves
we speak about light waves
it is a big differnce
it has a cpmpletely diferent energy definition
a wave definition has nothing to do with h
it is a completely differner physicsl phenomena !!!so PD s
introduction of sound waves
was a uusual a system of trying to confuse by obfuscation !!
and sliding the issue sideways !!
----------------
-----
you jumped too soon before reading the rest of my post !!
-----------
He didn't even mention energy.
very bad that he didnt mension energy !!
and even didnt mensionmass units .......
He didn't mention energy because he was talking about the frequency of
a sound.
He didn't mention mass units because he was taking about the frequency
of a sound.
see above it is obvious that it is not what i was ytakiing about
see again the titles:
**do you see tyhere the word PHOTON ** ??
so waht the hell he starts to talk about sound waves ??
----------
di dPD nominated you as his lawyer ??
cant you wait till he will reply ??
He will reply when he wants to reply.
I will reply when I want to.
----------
ok its obvious
yet it is obvious that PD is not responding and not appositely !!
----------------
-----------
Out of curiosity, what do you think the energy you were taking about is
being emitted from?
again not very relevant
now why do **you mension now energy while PD didnt ?? (:-)
Because you were talking about energy being emitted from something.
more acurate i an talking about the smallest unit of photon energy
rariated from something
it is more clear now ??
if you take the hf you realise that no natter of where or from waht
it is always the h times something ie the h has something todo with my
question !!
actuaslly h/c^2 is the smallest photon unit of photons no matetr
waht is their origine
and that is waht i am striding to.
btw can you tell me why i am always typing 'waht instead of' 'what' 'no
matetr how
attentive i will be (:-) is it dyslexia ?
-----------
that is generally energy that is emmited by Atoms
it can be from electro9ns it can be from Neutrons
and others that even you still dont know and i do !!......
------------
------------
may be i was not clear enough about what i suggest as a single photon:
of time
of 1/f second!!
is it clearer now ??
Porat, listen carefully.
-------------
now i was asking you a question and you forgot to answer
may be not accidentally you forgot :
here is my question:
if we radiate a photon eelctric cell by a high frequency wave of
----------
alow me to smile now a big smile !!!!!
we are talking about a single unit
and you give me not a single but MANY SINGLES
is it not an intrisic contradiction to the definition of single
or may be i had to stress that i am looking for the SMALLEST SINGLE?
i thought it i sobvious !!
we are talking physics and are looking for the basic of the photon
so amy be i was not unequivocal enough??
if so i appologise
but hope i made myself clear enough
jusr eemenbe r that my7 secondary aim was to claim that
in the double stil experinet for photons
people talk about a single photon while they have no idea waht is the
definition of a 'single photon
so themain point is that
actually
THERE ARE THERE MANY PHOTONS AND NOT REALLY
(physically not mathematically artifact ) A *SINGLE PHOTON!**
and if so the enigma od doubel slit is not actually an enigma
iow it is much simpler than posed misleadingly !!
----------
if yes
can that hf be considered the quantitative definition of
A SINGLE PHOTON ???
Yes.see above
-------------------
Of course not, you are just being stupid.
see above
i was looking tothe SALLEST UNIT
was it not obvious ??
now if it is obvious now
we can satrt from the start ...................ie a better unequivocal
start
so ???
what is the quantitative definition of the smallest single photon??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------
---------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
As usual, this is getting nowhere.
What you are now asking about, whether you realise it or not, is what
is the lowest possible frequency.
----------------------
no
youstill dont get me !!
i mean the smallest not along one second
Makes no sense.
but theslalest that lasts 1/f seconds !!
A photon lasts until it is destroyed, for example, by being absorbed by
an electron.
A photon does not just dissappear after 1/f seconds.
do you know why
because as i said many times the fofinition depending on one second
is a human artiafct it is not naturs 'artifact'
Frequency is number of cycles per unit of time.
Hertz is number of cycles per second.
If you don't like the Hertz then dont use it.
the phtoon that is created (or acording to you ) is lasting and
No. not according to me at all. The photon lasts until it is destoyed.
It does not fade out of existence after a certain amount of time.
detected during 1/f second is natures 'artifact' (creation) !!!!
It is not detected over 1/f seconds.
How many time do you need to be told this.
Why can't you understand what you are being told?
The detection of the photon is instantaneous, it does not take 1/f
seconds.
did i made muself clear now
Yes it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
is it an unequivocal definition ??
Only in your head.
-------------
You seem to think that the answer to this question is 1 Hz.
Why couldn't we have 0.5 Hz?
Why couldn't we have 1 * 10^-20 Hz?
----------------------
see above
2 btw
0.5 or 10 ^-20 Hertz are not found experimentally !!
only in your paper
And what produces a 1Hz photon?
so i thing that my definition is much closer to exoermental data !!
Well, you think wrong.
ps i wonder why is it that only Igor - got me much before
and much quicker --than all the others .......
Igor didn't get you.
He told you that a photon is E=hf.
Plenty of people have told that E=hf.
Nobody has told you that E = h, that is soley your delusion.
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
..............
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 09:19:56 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
PD wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
sg552@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
snip
Porat, listen carefully.
A single photon is created when an electron which is bound within an
atom makes a quantum jump (which is instantaneous or near enough, not 1
second) from an energy level to a lower energy level.
If we take the simple case of a hydrogen atom, then the frequency of
the photon can be given by the equation:
f = (f_C / 2) * (alpha^2 / n_f^2 - alpha^2 / n_i^2)
and the energy of the photon by:
E = (h * f_C / 2) * (alpha^2 / n_f^2 - alpha^2 / n_i^2)
where,
f is the frequency of the photon,
E is the energy of the photon,
h is Planck's constant,
f_C is the Compton frequency of the electron,
alpha is the fine structure constant,
n_f is the final energy level of the electron, and
n_i is the initial energy level of the electron.
Both n_f and n_i are integers.
By the way,
h * f_C / 2 = hbar * omega_C / 2
and,
E = hbar * omega / 2
is the energy associated with the ground state of a quantum harmonic
oscillator.
A single photon which is absorbed by a single electron will cause that
electron to jump to a higher energy level. If the frequency of the
single photon is high enough, then the electron will be emitted from
the atom.
A single high frequency photon goes in, a single electron comes out.
Is that clear enough for you to understand?
TIA
VERGON
Would you do me a favor and explain just HOW they produce a single
photon?
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 10:49:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Would you do me a favor and explain just HOW they produce a single
photon?
Very dim light in very short pulses.
However, there are other ways. Here's a paper on a scheme
for producing single photons on demand in response to a
trigger signal (for cryptographic purposes).
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 11:05:09 AM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Would you do me a favor and explain just HOW they produce a single
photon?
Very dim light in very short pulses.
However, there are other ways. Here's a paper on a scheme
for producing single photons on demand in response to a
trigger signal (for cryptographic purposes).
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
----------------------
they use there the term 'pulse' or per pulse'
do you think that that term is unequivocally defined ???!!!!
(are there not many kinds of pulses ??)
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 04:25:44 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Would you do me a favor and explain just HOW they produce a single
photon?
Very dim light in very short pulses.
However, there are other ways. Here's a paper on a scheme
for producing single photons on demand in response to a
trigger signal (for cryptographic purposes).
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
----------------------
they use there the term 'pulse' or per pulse'
Yes they do. So did I.
do you think that that term is unequivocally defined ???!!!!
Yes. It means that your emission of energy has a
start and stop time.
(are there not many kinds of pulses ??)
Yes. What does that have to do with the discussion?
In this case, the idea is that the time and intensity are
such that a large fraction of your pulses only contain hf
of energy.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
24 Aug 2006 11:51:25 PM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Would you do me a favor and explain just HOW they produce a single
photon?
Very dim light in very short pulses.
However, there are other ways. Here's a paper on a scheme
for producing single photons on demand in response to a
trigger signal (for cryptographic purposes).
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
----------------------
they use there the term 'pulse' or per pulse'
Yes they do. So did I.
do you think that that term is unequivocally defined ???!!!!
Yes. It means that your emission of energy has a
start and stop time.
------------------------------
but is that satrt and stop the same in all experiments ??
is it a definit constant time that has some physical meaning??
please note that acording to me and Igor
the time duration of the smallest single photon is 1/f seconds !!!!
that is( imho) an unequivocal physicasl definition
because if you send a wave of a choerand frequancy - a definit
frequency
during x seconds it is not like sending it during x +delta x seconds
!!
x time and x+deltax duration photon - cannot tbe defined as a single
photon
(it can certainly be defined asat least a few photons !!)
----------------------------
(are there not many kinds of pulses ??)
Yes. What does that have to do with the discussion?
see the title of this thread
In this case, the idea is that the time and intensity are
such that a large fraction of your pulses only contain hf
of energy.
---------------------------
'a large fraction' is an unequivocal definition of a single photon
???
(what about the rest of that 'large fraction ??)
besides we are not dealing with anythin 'fractional'
we are trying to deal with something that is a COMPLETE(absolute)
UNIT
not a fraction of a unit and not something excessive than a single
unit !!........
that is uded all over the world with the same unequivocal definition
something definit say as a **single** Neutron .........
- Randy
----------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
25 Aug 2006 03:03:05 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
vergon@gawab.com wrote:
Would you do me a favor and explain just HOW they produce a single
photon?
Very dim light in very short pulses.
However, there are other ways. Here's a paper on a scheme
for producing single photons on demand in response to a
trigger signal (for cryptographic purposes).
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
----------------------
they use there the term 'pulse' or per pulse'
Yes they do. So did I.
do you think that that term is unequivocally defined ???!!!!
Yes. It means that your emission of energy has a
start and stop time.
------------------------------
but is that satrt and stop the same in all experiments ??
is it a definit constant time that has some physical meaning??
please note that acording to me and Igor
the time duration of the smallest single photon is 1/f seconds !!!!
Incorrect. Igor said no such thing. Here is what Igor said,
"Monochromatic radiation of frequency f and energy E, where E/f = h.
This radiation consists of only one photon."
that is( imho) an unequivocal physicasl definition
because if you send a wave of a choerand frequancy - a definit
frequency
during x seconds it is not like sending it during x +delta x seconds
!!
x time and x+deltax duration photon - cannot tbe defined as a single
photon
(it can certainly be defined asat least a few photons !!)
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
----------------------------
(are there not many kinds of pulses ??)
Yes. What does that have to do with the discussion?
see the title of this thread
In this case, the idea is that the time and intensity are
such that a large fraction of your pulses only contain hf
of energy.
---------------------------
'a large fraction' is an unequivocal definition of a single photon
???
(what about the rest of that 'large fraction ??)
besides we are not dealing with anythin 'fractional'
we are trying to deal with something that is a COMPLETE(absolute)
UNIT
not a fraction of a unit and not something excessive than a single
unit !!........
that is uded all over the world with the same unequivocal definition
something definit say as a **single** Neutron .........
- Randy
----------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Try again, but this time in english.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
25 Aug 2006 03:59:46 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
----------------------
they use there the term 'pulse' or per pulse'
Yes they do. So did I.
do you think that that term is unequivocally defined ???!!!!
Yes. It means that your emission of energy has a
start and stop time.
------------------------------
but is that satrt and stop the same in all experiments ??
is it a definit constant time that has some physical meaning??
please note that acording to me and Igor
the time duration of the smallest single photon is 1/f seconds !!!!
Incorrect. Igor said no such thing. Here is what Igor said,
"Monochromatic radiation of frequency f and energy E, where E/f = h.
This radiation consists of only one photon."
--------------------------
if you dont mins E/f is the same as
the energy of photon that lasts 1/f seconds
and if it is defining the energy the pther properties are ascociated as
well unequivocally
E=hf h is h
f is c/lambda etc etc
---------------
that is( imho) an unequivocal physicasl definition
because if you send a wave of a choerand frequancy - a definit
frequency
during x seconds it is not like sending it during x +delta x seconds
!!
x time and x+deltax duration photon - cannot tbe defined as a single
photon
(it can certainly be defined asat least a few photons !!)
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
------------------
think again
-------------------
----------------------------
(are there not many kinds of pulses ??)
Yes. What does that have to do with the discussion?
see the title of this thread
In this case, the idea is that the time and intensity are
such that a large fraction of your pulses only contain hf
of energy.
---------------------------
'a large fraction' is an unequivocal definition of a single photon
???
(what about the rest of that 'large fraction ??)
besides we are not dealing with anythin 'fractional'
we are trying to deal with something that is a COMPLETE(absolute)
UNIT
not a fraction of a unit and not something excessive than a single
unit !!........
that is uded all over the world with the same unequivocal definition
something definit say as a **single** Neutron .........
- Randy
----------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Try again, but this time in english.
while you satrt tomension myEnglish
that is the time i know you have no more physics correction for me ....
(:-)
btw do you must aways be agianst me come what come may ??
so if byu any chance i am right (by accident) just say at least
' i think you are rigth' or there is a slight posibility that you are
right
or i think there is something in your claims
how about such illusionary situation?? (:-)
or may be that in case i will be right you will .................
keep silent ???!!!
(ie to avoid for youself the trouble to say something positive for me
??)
(take an example for PD for instance ...........)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
25 Aug 2006 05:10:25 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/qcmc021.pdf
- Randy
----------------------
they use there the term 'pulse' or per pulse'
Yes they do. So did I.
do you think that that term is unequivocally defined ???!!!!
Yes. It means that your emission of energy has a
start and stop time.
------------------------------
but is that satrt and stop the same in all experiments ??
is it a definit constant time that has some physical meaning??
please note that acording to me and Igor
the time duration of the smallest single photon is 1/f seconds !!!!
Incorrect. Igor said no such thing. Here is what Igor said,
"Monochromatic radiation of frequency f and energy E, where E/f = h.
This radiation consists of only one photon."
--------------------------
if you dont mins E/f is the same as
the energy of photon that lasts 1/f seconds
No it isn't. E/f is not energy at all. E/f = h.
h has units of angular momentum, J s (kg m^2 s^-1).
The photon does not last for 1/f seconds, it lasts until it is
destroyed.
What is so difficult about this to understand?
You have been told this many times now.
and if it is defining the energy the pther properties are ascociated as
well unequivocally
E=hf h is h
f is c/lambda etc etc
---------------
that is( imho) an unequivocal physicasl definition
because if you send a wave of a choerand frequancy - a definit
frequency
during x seconds it is not like sending it during x +delta x seconds
!!
x time and x+deltax duration photon - cannot tbe defined as a single
photon
(it can certainly be defined asat least a few photons !!)
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
------------------
think again
Are you trying to say that sending a photon of a specific frequency
over 1 second is not like sending a photon of the same frequency over 2
seconds?
If this is what you mean, then it makes no sense to me.
-------------------
----------------------------
(are there not many kinds of pulses ??)
Yes. What does that have to do with the discussion?
see the title of this thread
In this case, the idea is that the time and intensity are
such that a large fraction of your pulses only contain hf
of energy.
---------------------------
'a large fraction' is an unequivocal definition of a single photon
???
(what about the rest of that 'large fraction ??)
besides we are not dealing with anythin 'fractional'
we are trying to deal with something that is a COMPLETE(absolute)
UNIT
not a fraction of a unit and not something excessive than a single
unit !!........
that is uded all over the world with the same unequivocal definition
something definit say as a **single** Neutron .........
- Randy
----------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Try again, but this time in english.
while you satrt tomension myEnglish
that is the time i know you have no more physics correction for me ....
(:-)
I will always have physics corrections for you, Porat.
btw do you must aways be agianst me come what come may ??
Well, you keep posting stuff that is blatantly incorrect.
so if byu any chance i am right (by accident) just say at least
' i think you are rigth' or there is a slight posibility that you are
right
No, you are totally wrong.
or i think there is something in your claims
how about such illusionary situation?? (:-)
or may be that in case i will be right you will .................
keep silent ???!!!
I don't see it happening Porat.
You have been told time and time again that you are mistaken.
You have been shown time and time again were your mistakes are.
Yet you keep posting the same mistakes over and over again.
In your next post, you will say something similar to the following:
The duration of the photon is 1/f seconds.
The smallest photon unit is E/h.
Or maybe you will come to your senses and realise how wrong those
statements are, but I wont hold my breath.
(ie to avoid for youself the trouble to say something positive for me
??)
(take an example for PD for instance ...........)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the QUANTITATIVE definition of a 'single photon' ??? |
25 Aug 2006 09:51:41 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Golden Boar wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
"Monochromatic radiation of frequency f and energy E, where E/f = h.
This radiation consists of only one photon."
--------------------------
if you dont mins E/f is the same as
the energy of photon that lasts 1/f seconds
No it isn't. E/f is not energy at all. E/f = h.
h has units of angular momentum, J s (kg m^2 s^-1).
The photon does not last for 1/f seconds, it lasts until it is
destroyed.
------------------------
so you say that you cant have a photon that lasts 1/f seconds
??!!or nay be
you still didnt got what a photon is ??
actually i tmust not last for 1/f seconds
it can be only measured during 1/f seconds
or even get it by interpolation calculation etc !!!
BTW
that is one of my claimes that noone even realy did the double slit
experimwent with a real single photon
becaise it seems to be at least noe imposible technically !!!!!!!!
--------------
What is so difficult about this to understand?
You have been told this many times now.
and if it is defining the energy the pther properties are ascociated as
well unequivocally
E=hf h is h
f is c/lambda etc etc
---------------
that is( imho) an unequivocal physicasl definition
because if you send a wave of a choerand frequancy - a definit
frequency
during x seconds it is not like sending it during x +delta x seconds
!!
x time and x+deltax duration photon - cannot tbe defined as a single
photon
(it can certainly be defined asat least a few photons !!)
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
------------------
think again
Are you trying to say that sending a photon of a specific frequency
over 1 second is not like sending a photon of the same frequency over 2
seconds?
If this is what you mean, then it makes no sense to me.
--------------
so let me help you :
case 1
if the sun is emitting a certain frequency during a second
case 2
and later it will radaiate the same frequency during a whol;e year
will th e energy emitted quantity emmited in case 1 the same as in
case 2 ??
-------------------
----------------------------
---------------------------
'a large fraction' is an unequivocal definition of a single photon
???
(what about the rest of that 'large fraction ??)
besides we are not dealing with anythin 'fractional'
we are trying to deal with something that is a COMPLETE(absolute)
UNIT
not a fraction of a unit and not something excessive than a single
unit !!........
that is uded all over the world with the same unequivocal definition
something definit say as a **single** Neutron .........
- Randy
----------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Try again, but this time in english.
while you satrt tomension myEnglish
that is the time i know you have no more physics correction for me ....
(:-)
I will always have physics corrections for you, Porat.
realy ??
and waht abou tme correecting you ?
to you wahnt to give it a try ??
ok here it is
(the diffrereenc ebetween me and you is thati make my best not to
insult you
while it is not in your case against me
so here is my correction to you;
you said above (am,ny times) that the definition of the photon unit is
the one neeeded to move an electron from one energy level to another
one
really ??
do you waht to sauy that all the removal of energies in the Atom
of electron form one level to another one ARE ALL OF THEM THE SAME
ENERGY QUANTITY ??!!
and if it is **not ** the same quantity than how can that be a UNIT
AMOUINT ??
while you ahve many quantities like that
so which one of them?
from level one to level 2?
or may be from 2 to 3 ??
or may be from 3 to 4?
and for which Atom ??
will you adnit now being wrong ?? i wonder !!
-------------------------
btw do you must aways be agianst me come what come may ??
Well, you keep posting stuff that is blatantly incorrect.
so if byu any chance i am right (by accident) just say at least
' i think you are rigth' or there is a slight posibility that you are
right
No, you are totally wrong.
or i think there is something in your claims
how about such illusionary situation?? (:-)
or may be that in case i will be right you will .................
keep silent ???!!!
I don't see it happening Porat.
you saw it just now and above
and not only now
----------
You have been told time and time again that you are mistaken.
who said that ???
who i mean how do you know that the oher one is right??
you told me that ther is no mass at all
and people told you that you are wrong
so ??
are you the one to educate me ??
is PD the one to educate me ?? while he is nothing than a parrot ??
----------
You have been shown time and time again were your mistakes are.
Yet you keep posting the same mistakes over and over again.
see above
In your next post, you will say something similar to the following:
The duration of the photon is 1/f seconds.
The smallest photon unit is E/h.
Or maybe you will come to your senses and realise how wrong those
statements are, but I wont hold my breath.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
