Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391847 > unrolled thread

MIT Lunar reflector experiment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 22:25 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 13:53 +0000
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 10:03 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-09 10:31 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-09-09 11:43 -0700
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:06 -0700
          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-10 11:46 +0200
            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-10 06:53 -0700
              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-11 09:03 +0200
                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 05:57 -0700
                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-11 10:04 -0500
                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-11 10:32 -0700
                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:52 -0500
                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 01:23 -0700
                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 04:51 -0700
                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-13 10:39 -0700
                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 16:10 -0700
                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-14 06:05 -0700
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 06:22 -0700
                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 00:14 -0700
                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:52 -0700
                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 05:48 -0700
                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 06:29 -0700
                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-15 13:42 -0700
                                              Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:57 -0700
                                                Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-16 10:34 -0700
                                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:53 -0500
                                                    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:21 -0700
                                                      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-17 10:37 -0500
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 10:21 -0700
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:36 -0700
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:37 -0500
                                                          Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-21 23:18 -0500
                                                            Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-09-25 16:01 -0400
                                                        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:47 -0700
                                                What does "classical" mean? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:35 -0500
                                                  Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 05:13 +0000
                                                    Re: What does "classical" mean? Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 08:31 +0000
                                  Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:04 -0700
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:33 +0000
        Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-11 22:32 +1000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:36 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-09 20:20 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:37 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:40 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 02:38 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:46 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 03:41 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:52 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 14:48 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:35 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:48 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:55 -0500
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:38 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:43 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:05 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 20:56 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:35 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:58 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:24 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 13:54 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:56 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:38 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:34 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 17:50 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 11:51 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 02:50 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:26 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:40 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 00:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:41 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:02 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:33 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:21 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:53 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:15 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 12:24 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 13:08 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 21:36 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:17 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:22 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 14:57 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 11:35 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:27 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:33 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:34 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 12:36 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:18 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:24 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:22 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 12:06 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 01:19 +0000
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:13 -0700
      Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 19:04 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:48 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 12:15 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment Jan2 - 2016-09-30 11:20 +0200
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:13 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:51 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:00 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:05 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:21 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 16:03 -0700
    Re: MIT Lunar reflector experiment numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:41 -0700

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#392038

On 10/09/2016 3:03 AM, dlzc wrote:
> Dear Michael Moroney:
>
> On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 6:54:25 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney
> wrote: ...
>> Nope. The Hubble could not _image_ the reflector.  It will be seen
>> as a featureless point of light, just like the stars in the night
>> sky, which are dozens or hundreds of light years distant but have a
>> diameter only on the order of a million km.  Obviously, if photons
>> are reflected from the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will
>> trigger the photosensors.
>
> Those mirrors are very special.  They only reflect incident light
> back *exactly* along the line the light came in from.  So Hubble,
> since it has no "flash attachment" would see only the equipment
> package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors
> proper.

They're subject to the same limitations as other optical devices. For 
example, a 10cm retroreflector on the moon, even if it is optically 
perfect, will scatter the reflected photons over a circle of radius of 
around one kilometre back on the Earth.

So one need only choose a point on Earth that at some moment will lie on 
the extended line between Hubble and the retroreflector, and some of the 
returning light will be intercepted by the telescope.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391909

 Obviously, if photons are reflected from 
the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors. 

-----------------------------------------------

Not if the reflected ray is below the threshold intensity of a photomultipler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391918

On 9/9/16 9/9/16   6:36 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>  Obviously, if photons are reflected from
> the mirror and reach the Hubble, they will trigger the photosensors.

But the LLR light never reaches Hubble. The geometry is completely wrong.


> Not if the reflected ray is below the threshold intensity of a photomultipler.

Photomultipliers count individual photons. There is no "threshold intensity", as 
long as there are some photons in the light ray (and if there aren't then it 
isn't a light ray).


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391910

Those mirrors are very special.  They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from.

_____________________________________________________


Maybe in your wet dreams.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391911

those mirrors are very special. They only reflect incident light back *exactly* along the line the light came in from. So Hubble, since it has no "flash >attachment" would see only the equipment package with incident solar radiation, nothing off the mirrors proper. 

____________________________________


Interesting thanks. Makes sense. jaymo...@hotmail.com

______________________________________


Have you ever heard of dispersion or does SR eliminate that to?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391912

For most of the LLR facilities, that would be the case. However, the Apache 
Point observatory in New Mexico has exceptionally clear "seeing". That combined 
with the large 3.5 meter mirror means that it can typically capture a return 
photon or two with every pulse (depending on which retroreflector it aims at). 


_____________________________________________________________


Another nocturnal dreamer. A single photon (per second) is not going to set off the photomultiplier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391927

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>Another nocturnal dreamer. A single photon (per second) is not going to 
>set off the photomultiplier.

Sure it can.  With the old kind of photomultiplier, the photoelectric
effect means one photon produces one electron.  The "multiplier" part of
the photomultiplier means that the electron cascades into a pulse of
electrons over several steps. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391928

>Those mirrors are very special.  They only reflect incident light back 
>*exactly* along the line the light came in from. 

You are right, they are corner reflectors.  Of course *exactly* depends on 
the preciseness of manufacture.  For example, reflectors on cars and 
bicycles have little corner reflectors molded in plastic. They don't 
reflect exactly back which is fine since a driver's eyeballs aren't 
where the headlights are.

__________________________________________________


Dispersion 

 












 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391958

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 9:46:44 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Those mirrors are very special.  They only reflect incident light back 
> >*exactly* along the line the light came in from. 
> 
> You are right, they are corner reflectors.  Of course *exactly* depends on 
> the preciseness of manufacture.  For example, reflectors on cars and 
> bicycles have little corner reflectors molded in plastic. They don't 
> reflect exactly back which is fine since a driver's eyeballs aren't 
> where the headlights are.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Dispersion

Wrong. Diffraction and inaccuracies of manufacture result in spread of the
return beam. 

For auto reflectors, the inaccuracies of manufacture are intentional and
carefully computed so that a headlight beam does not reflect directly back to
the headlights, but shines a significant fraction of the light back to a
driver's eyes.

Diffraction depends on the size of the corner reflector. The reflectors set out
by the Apollo astronauts and the Lunokhod rovers were as large as the available
technology allowed back then. Next-generation corner reflectors will be 
considerably larger, so that a single reflector will do the work of a sheet of
reflectors. A major source of inaccuracy in current measurements to the Moon
comes from the large areas of the sheets of reflectors. Use of monolithic
corner reflectors will allow future distance measurements to be better than
0.1 mm

Other future possibilities include, not passive corner reflectors, but use of 
active transponders. This would enable each pulse to trigger the return of 
thousands of photons.

Dispersion is only a factor with non-monochromatic light, and yes, it is true
that you can see a bit of a rainbow effect in a bicycle reflector, but our 
concern here is with the lunar *laser* ranging experiment. Dispersion is
insignificant using lasers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391929

>Another nocturnal dreamer. A single photon (per second) is not going to 
>set off the photomultiplier. 


Sure it can.  With the old kind of photomultiplier, the photoelectric 
effect means one photon produces one electron.  The "multiplier" part of 
the photomultiplier means that the electron cascades into a pulse of 
electrons over several steps. Michael Moroney   


_________________________________________________________


Are you being seriously stupid or What! A photomultiplier is based on the photoelectric effect which is reliant on a threshold intensity which is the reason solar cell do not function at night unless of course you are stupid or having another nocturnal dream.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391968

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:


>>Another nocturnal dreamer. A single photon (per second) is not going to
>>set off the photomultiplier.


>Sure it can.  With the old kind of photomultiplier, the photoelectric
>effect means one photon produces one electron.  The "multiplier" part of
>the photomultiplier means that the electron cascades into a pulse of
>electrons over several steps. Michael Moroney


>_________________________________________________________


>Are you being seriously stupid or What! A photomultiplier is based on the
>photoelectric effect which is reliant on a threshold intensity which is 
>the reason solar cell do not function at night unless of course you are 
stupid or having another nocturnal dream.

Wrong.  Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect.  He explicitly
disproved of your threshold idea.  A single photon (of sufficient energy) 
produces exactly one electron.  The multiplier effect is that there is
a positively charged plate in the photomultiplier tube where that 
electron, being accelerated, slams into a different type of substance
which releases more electrons.  There may be further stages of this.
But the net result is a pulse of current (electrons) from a single
photon.

As to solar cells, I don't know the physics behind them, but I suspect
that at the fundamental level it is still one photon == one electron
of current.  It may be that there are internal losses such that all
current below a point gets lost internally.  Or maybe not, solar cells
do work via starlight but produce so little current it is not at all
useful.

I also don't know the physics of a CCD device in the Hubble imager.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391980

Dispersion is insignificant using lasers.----------Prokaryotic

_____________________________________________________________________



Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392012

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 4:35:03 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dispersion is insignificant using lasers.----------Prokaryotic
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles!

That is DIFFRACTION, not DISPERSION.

Two different terms, two different effects.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392154

On 9/10/16 9/10/16 - 4:35 PM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Using a 3mW laser beam, the initial diameter, of the beam, is 3mm. At a
> distance of 20 ft the diameter of the beam increases to 3.5 mm. At the
> surface of the moon the beam's width would be over 5,000 miles!

Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Your "numbers" are 
completely wrong.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391981

Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect.  He explicitly 
disproved of your threshold idea.  A single photon (of sufficient energy) 
produces exactly one electron.---------Michael Moroney

_________________________________________________________


Don't believe everything you read, ex Einstein. Also, a single electron cannot form a detectable current that is required in forming a signal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391994

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 3:38:36 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect.  He explicitly 
> disproved of your threshold idea.  A single photon (of sufficient energy) 
> produces exactly one electron.---------Michael Moroney
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Don't believe everything you read, ex Einstein.

The photoelectric effect is well-established, and Einstein just explained
why the experimental results (which he did NOT perform) came out contrary
to the way you falsely believe the effect works.

> Also, a single electron cannot form a detectable current that is required
> in forming a signal.

I'm running a long-term experiment right now that uses a photomultiplier
tube to detect very short light PULSES and I get nice pulses of electrons
out of it.  It works just fine, thank you.

"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person
doing it." --Chinese proverb

Assertive people who don't know what they're talking about are trolls.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391999

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>Read Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect.  He explicitly 
>disproved of your threshold idea.  A single photon (of sufficient energy) 
>produces exactly one electron.---------Michael Moroney

>_________________________________________________________


>Don't believe everything you read, ex Einstein.

However, the photoelectric effect has been repeated over and over again
so this is definitely a case where Einstein can be believed.

> Also, a single electron 
>cannot form a detectable current that is required in forming a signal.

But a photomultiplied electron can easily be detected as a signal.

The lunar ranging people detect single photons all the time. Betcha
it starts out as a single electron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392002

It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold intensity that is required in the production of the photoelectric effect. There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect that describes a threshold intensity.  The lunar lander experiment is a hoax since for the Hubble telescope to recognize an object requires an object of 200 meter in diameter and the MIT lunar lander reflector has a surface area of 1 m squared.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392009

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 6:41:33 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold
> intensity that is required in the production of the photoelectric effect.

Repeating stupidity doesn't make you smart.

> There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect that
> describes a threshold intensity.

And lying doesn't do anything except proving your dishonesty.  Of course,
if you REALLY believed your blather, then you would be an ignoramus.
Take your pick.

> The lunar lander experiment is a hoax since for the Hubble telescope to
> recognize an object requires an object of 200 meter in diameter and the
> MIT lunar lander reflector has a surface area of 1 m squared.

Repeating bullshit doesn't improve its smell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392013

On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 7:41:33 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not possible to detect a single photon because of the threshold intensity that is required in the production of the photoelectric effect. There are thousand of books regarding the photoelectric effect that describes a threshold intensity.  The lunar lander experiment is a hoax since for the Hubble telescope to recognize an object requires an object of 200 meter in diameter and the MIT lunar lander reflector has a surface area of 1 m squared.

You are confused about the photoelectric effect.

There is no threshold INTENSITY.

There *IS* a threshold FREQUENCY, or energy per photon.

A photon must have a certain minimum energy before it is capable of knocking
an electron out of its orbit around an atom.

All it takes is ONE photon of sufficient energy.

However, the intensity of the return beam can be arbitrarily low, meaning that
there is no lower limit to the number of return photons per second, minute, or
hour. A single photon of sufficient energy is all that it takes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web