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

Groups > sci.physics > #590803 > unrolled thread

Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 06:05 -0700
    Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 07:12 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 08:36 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:10 -0500
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 09:39 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 11:46 -0400
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-26 10:38 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 12:23 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-07-26 17:05 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 19:10 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:29 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 22:15 -0700
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:28 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 10:36 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:37 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 20:04 +0000
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:48 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 13:29 +0000
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:01 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-27 09:30 -0700
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-27 09:40 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 19:13 +0000
              Young's two-pinhole moire' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:25 -0700
          just say, no, thank you noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:00 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 22:11 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-31 00:48 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 10:51 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-31 00:46 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:31 +0200
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 14:01 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:38 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:57 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 23:31 -0700
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 04:28 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:23 -0500
      sumably, pre- noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:01 -0700
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-28 19:35 -0400
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:43 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:29 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 12:29 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 17:06 -0400
            Light: a history noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:38 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:29 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 17:03 -0400
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:06 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 20:13 -0400
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:44 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 17:56 -0400
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:45 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 17:58 -0400
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 17:10 -0400
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:15 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-29 20:25 -0400
                Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:47 -0500
                  Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 18:00 -0400
                    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:02 -0500
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-30 18:05 -0400
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 18:41 -0400
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? ken quirici <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-31 12:24 -0700
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:33 -0500
              Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 03:32 -0700
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:27 -0500
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 03:29 -0700
              can you read that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 12:12 -0700
                Re: can you read that Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 08:29 -0400
                  Re: can you read that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:22 -0700
                    t.h.a.t noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 12:33 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-07-31 01:00 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:26 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-31 17:12 -0400
            Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:09 -0500
          Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 03:35 -0700
        Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:34 -0700
    Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 08:07 +0200
      Re: Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-04 12:10 -0700

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

#591189

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:04:10 PM UTC-7, brandon...@gmail.com wrote:
> the wave is perfectly omnidirectional, and
> all properties are those of waves.  one can use photon as only a quantum
> of a certain energy per cycle e.g.
> 
> also, see Lanscoz' quaternionic treatment
> of special relativity ... I did not get it,
> when I first saw his bOOk, _Variational mechanicS, but
> he was reputedly Einstein's secretary
> 
> 
> > > see _Light, a history:
> > > the Fermat's complete correspondence on light_
> > 
> > > > diffraction pattern on single photons. If you consider angles greater 
> > > > than 90 it causes the functions to become imaginary (which should be 
> > > > right up your alley) and hence they represent near field energy. My 
> > > > diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to finish

Feynman's Sum over history is his answer,and in reality only hecould have come up with it.Its weird,but so is QM. Trebert

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

#591210

On 07/28/2016 09:43 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> even Fermat used "ray-tracing to work properties of light;
> see _Light, a history:
> the Fermat's complete correspondence on light_

Ray tracing does not do diffraction, NTT.

Get with the topic.

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

#591449 — Light: a history

yes, but  aray is just a sinlg enormal to the wavefront, and
I don't know (or thin that this is apparent
from the work of Fermat, Pascal et al.

all properties of light are known, up to & e'er after Newton
and his sylli corpuscle (he avverred tha light went faster
in a denser medium, like sound does, whether or not
he drew ana analogy with sound

> > even Fermat used "ray-tracing to work properties of light;
> > see _Light, a history:
> > the Fermat's complete correspondence on light_
> 
> Ray tracing does not do diffraction, NTT.
> 
> Get with the topic.

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

#591133

On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
> imagines.

What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591208

On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>> imagines.
>
> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>
Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.

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

#591209

On 7/29/2016 4:03 PM, B Gates wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>>> imagines.
>>
>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>
> Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.

Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a 
theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591226

On 07/29/2016 05:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 4:03 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>>>> imagines.
>>>
>>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>>
>> Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.
>
> Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a
> theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?
>
you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things 
from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on 
something, it's what you work on. In your lib world you just have a 
fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something. 
And then hit your stash again.

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

#591276

On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 05:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 4:03 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like
>>>>> HVAC
>>>>> imagines.
>>>>
>>>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>>>
>>> Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.
>>
>> Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a
>> theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?
>>
> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
> something, it's what you work on.

So now that you're not working for a boss, what is keeping you from 
finishing the theory?

> In your lib world you just have a
> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
> And then hit your stash again.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591308

On 7/30/2016 1:44 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> On 07/29/2016 05:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2016 4:03 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>>>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like
>>>>>> HVAC
>>>>>> imagines.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>>>>
>>>> Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.
>>>
>>> Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a
>>> theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?
>>>
>> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
>> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
>> something, it's what you work on.
>
> So now that you're not working for a boss, what is keeping you from
> finishing the theory?

Having trouble with reading comprehension, Boinker? I suggest you take a 
speed reading course. I did. Comprhension is important. Of course you 
and HVAC know it all BEFORE you start to read to understanding isn't a 
problem for you.

>> In your lib world you just have a
>> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
>> And then hit your stash again.
>
>

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

#591277

On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
> something, it's what you work on. In your lib world you just have a
> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
> And then hit your stash again.

Where was Einstein working when he produced the papers of 1905? Do you 
think his boss told him to work on those papers?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591309

On 7/30/2016 1:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
>> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
>> something, it's what you work on. In your lib world you just have a
>> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
>> And then hit your stash again.
>
> Where was Einstein working when he produced the papers of 1905? Do you
> think his boss told him to work on those papers?
>
It's best if bosses don't know anything. You'd make a good boss, 
Boinker. So you say Einstein should have cheated his employer and not 
done the work he was paid to do. You atheists don't believe in morality 
and ethics, do you?

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

#591211

On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>> imagines.
>
> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>
I see you trimmed the line in my post: "I could explain it all to you 
boinker, but you wouldn't listen anyway."

I love it when experiment confirms my theory. Out of all I said the only 
thing you heard was a reference to HVAC's childish lies. No more 
interest in physics or science than HVAC has.

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

#591212

On 7/29/2016 4:10 PM, B Gates wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>>> imagines.
>>
>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>
> I see you trimmed the line in my post: "I could explain it all to you
> boinker, but you wouldn't listen anyway."

You said you could not finish your diffraction theory. You said you were 
not allowed to finish it.

Now, you think you can "explain all this" with an unfinished theory?
And can you let me know what's holding you back from finishing it?

>
> I love it when experiment confirms my theory. Out of all I said the only
> thing you heard was a reference to HVAC's childish lies. No more
> interest in physics or science than HVAC has.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591230

On 07/29/2016 05:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 4:10 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>>>> imagines.
>>>
>>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>>
>> I see you trimmed the line in my post: "I could explain it all to you
>> boinker, but you wouldn't listen anyway."
>
> You said you could not finish your diffraction theory. You said you were
> not allowed to finish it.
>
> Now, you think you can "explain all this" with an unfinished theory?
> And can you let me know what's holding you back from finishing it?
>
>>
>> I love it when experiment confirms my theory. Out of all I said the only
>> thing you heard was a reference to HVAC's childish lies. No more
>> interest in physics or science than HVAC has.
>>
>
>
Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand 
that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not 
all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they 
wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving 
now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper 
is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along 
with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With 
your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say. 
Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital 
morons. It never ends.

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

#591278

On 7/29/2016 7:25 PM, B Gates wrote:
> Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand
> that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not
> all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they
> wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving
> now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper
> is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along
> with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With
> your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say.
> Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital
> morons. It never ends.

You seem to be full of excuses for not finishing a theory that would 
explain it all.

So you have lost your papers. You didn't back up any of your digital 
files and those are lost now too. You're just a disaster waiting to 
happen! No wonder you're not working.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591310

On 7/30/2016 1:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 7:25 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand
>> that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not
>> all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they
>> wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving
>> now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper
>> is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along
>> with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With
>> your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say.
>> Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital
>> morons. It never ends.
>
> You seem to be full of excuses for not finishing a theory that would
> explain it all.
>
> So you have lost your papers. You didn't back up any of your digital
> files and those are lost now too. You're just a disaster waiting to
> happen! No wonder you're not working.

Who says I'm not working? There are lots of important things that need 
to be done. That theory is down the list. You do understand that being 
Maxwellian, it's wrong even before it's done. That is a given. Oh ya!

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

#591391

On 7/30/2016 5:00 PM, benj wrote:
> On 7/30/2016 1:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 7:25 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand
>>> that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not
>>> all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they
>>> wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving
>>> now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper
>>> is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along
>>> with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With
>>> your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say.
>>> Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital
>>> morons. It never ends.
>>
>> You seem to be full of excuses for not finishing a theory that would
>> explain it all.
>>
>> So you have lost your papers. You didn't back up any of your digital
>> files and those are lost now too. You're just a disaster waiting to
>> happen! No wonder you're not working.
>
> Who says I'm not working? There are lots of important things that need
> to be done.

Right, but you're not employed by another person as a paid employee.
So you get to call your shots what to work on.

> That theory is down the list.

OK, so you're saying that this theory that you were NOT ALLOWED to 
finish is not done because it's lower in your priority list, and you 
lost all the papers and the digital files to boot.

> You do understand that being
> Maxwellian, it's wrong even before it's done. That is a given. Oh ya!
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591316

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>
>
>An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many 
>photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more 
>than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>
>However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed 
>even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus, 
>such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so 
>you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.

So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.

When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
same slit.

Why would they when they are fired one at a time?

Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
in either case?

If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?


>Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical 
>dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any 
>maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is 
>determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance 
>between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the 
>angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see 
>the pattern anyway.)

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

#591329

On 7/30/2016 6:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>
>>
>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>
>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>
> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>
> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> same slit.
>
> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>
> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> in either case?
>
> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?

Wally, Google is your friend (well, except for their political decision) 
See Wikipedia for how a pattern builds up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Note that if you fire single photons, what is known is that each ONLY 
GOES THROUGH ONE OF THE SLITS. Yes, some go though one and some go 
through the other but each one ONLY can go through one of the slits.

And the range of photon interactions is such that the distance to the 
other slit seems to say it is impossible for any photon to "sense" the 
presence of the other slit.

But oddly if you fire ENOUGH single photons at the slits the pattern on 
the target starts to build up. And NO it is NOT a "diffraction pattern". 
The reason being and that it is made up of discrete actions or points 
while a TRUE diffraction pattern would be a continuous differentiable 
function. BUT if you eyeball what you get you soon see that the array of 
impact dots very much approximates the shape of what is known in 
Maxwellian theory as the diffraction pattern.

This basically is the mystery of light that puzzled Einstein and has 
been termed the wave-particle duality.

OK?

You are right to be puzzled as to why the center of the pattern is 
between the slits even when single photons are sent. The pattern does 
not depend on large numbers of photons being sent at once. You can send 
a large number with each one sent singly and you get the same result.

It will be fun to watch Boinker try to find an "official" book to 
explain all this.

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

#591392

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 6:41:57 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 7/30/2016 6:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
> >>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
> >>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
> >>>
> >>
> >> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
> >> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
> >> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
> >>
> >> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
> >> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
> >> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
> >> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
> >
> > So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
> >
> > When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> > same slit.
> >
> > Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
> >
> > Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> > in either case?
> >
> > If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> > radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
> 
> Wally, Google is your friend (well, except for their political decision) 
> See Wikipedia for how a pattern builds up:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
> 
> Note that if you fire single photons, what is known is that each ONLY 
> GOES THROUGH ONE OF THE SLITS. Yes, some go though one and some go 
> through the other but each one ONLY can go through one of the slits.
> 
> And the range of photon interactions is such that the distance to the 
> other slit seems to say it is impossible for any photon to "sense" the 
> presence of the other slit.
> 
> But oddly if you fire ENOUGH single photons at the slits the pattern on 
> the target starts to build up. And NO it is NOT a "diffraction pattern". 
> The reason being and that it is made up of discrete actions or points 
> while a TRUE diffraction pattern would be a continuous differentiable 
> function. BUT if you eyeball what you get you soon see that the array of 
> impact dots very much approximates the shape of what is known in 
> Maxwellian theory as the diffraction pattern.

So why do 'they' say that the interference pattern  demonstrates the wave part of the particle/wave duality of the photon?

I'm more confused than ever.

> 
> This basically is the mystery of light that puzzled Einstein and has 
> been termed the wave-particle duality.
> 
> OK?
> 
> You are right to be puzzled as to why the center of the pattern is 
> between the slits even when single photons are sent. The pattern does 
> not depend on large numbers of photons being sent at once. You can send 
> a large number with each one sent singly and you get the same result.
> 
> It will be fun to watch Boinker try to find an "official" book to 
> explain all this.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web