There are so many experiments that can be redefined by comprehending what this means. a) double slit b) back body Then of biology: a) how the phospholipid bilayers, allow or repel any molecules to pass thru b) photo neuron conduction (how energy exchanges at the synapse); resonant energy transfer. c) identifying cancer and ultimately stopping the somatic mutation d,e,f,g,h I could be here all day listing what the evidence can assist with but how many realize, that just by holding a wavelength upon mass, is breaking just about every law the existing model allows. ie..... energy upon mass (light; resonating upon a structure (molecule, element(s))
I knew that you and i have gone over this before. Bishadi Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Swensson The double slit experiment is generally considered to be the simplest experiment which cannot be explained without quantum mechanics or some other equivalent theory. If it's simple, just post a link or something. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cute I said open a thread on it, and i will assist. my hint: colors (ie... each mass (element) and its different affect (patterns/colors) change Think of the double slit and then using different wavelength(s), slit sizes and then the recieving plate (mass) changed for each variation of wavelength. ie.... the DSE and black body (BB) are both incorrectly defined because the reaction points for each element, for each wavelength imposed, are not calculated. Both are like washing a car window with niagra falls. http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...l-evidence-consciousness-eternal-9-print.html There is a whole converation between you and I, from last year. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>>
And here we are in a new thread, discussing it. As for colours and wavelengths, I've performed the experiment with several wavelengths and slit sizes. Don't know what you mean by the part about the mass of the receiving plate, but if it would change mass and behaviour from that, there should be a time dependence which is not observed. The double slit experiment is quite well defined. Out of all possible objections you could have, I don't see how the definition is bad. What is a reaction point? I find no reference of it on the internet. <<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/INSULT >>>
and to ignor it, is why you still do not comprehend. Have you ever observed the buddha and noted that the wisdom is not to believe, but to do the work to comprehend for yourself. If you ignor what is real, then you have made the choice So perhaps read, then make a comprehensive inquiry, in which you stop ignoring and do the work. For example: do colors show that the light and the mass, are both relevant to an outcome of either the DSE or the Black Body (curve)? yes or no OK what about the recieving plate? ie... the wavelength to the recieving mass; do you have an experiment completed that shows that the thresholds are calculated for each elements/molecules? If not, then you did not do a quality experiment. So you basically admit that the DSE is not qualifying the mass!!!!!! for old timers, prior to current levels of required causality. You just admitted that the mass of the recieving plate is NOT OBSERVED in what you considered 'well defined'
It was blatantly off topic, the discussion was about consciousness and its definition. We had a discussion of three post's length going on, I find no error in leaving out the off topic stuff. I agree that when you're learning something, it can be beneficial to learn it yourself. However, I'm not trying to learn it for the moment, I'm trying to check if it is true and in that case, it is directly counter productive not to have all the facts. Drop the teacher act and tell me instead of hopping around the question. What aspects of colours are you expecting to tell you something about whether or not mass is relevant to the outcome? Black Body is not an experiment is not an experiment in itself and does not have an outcome. Be specific with what you mean. What about the receiving plate? What threshold are you referring to? What effect are you expecting the receiver to have? Besides, the different parts of the receiver being disconnected, any difference in their behaviour should be the same on all parts of it, influencing the strength but not the pattern of the effect. The receiving plate is not specified in the definition of the experiment, it can be performed with a large range of detectors and screens. Admit what? Speak clearly. This clause is half. Grammatically, it is meaningless. I'll ask again, what is a reaction point? Out of all the stuff you've posted about colours, I haven't seen anything I would accept as a proof. And again, what threshold are you referring to?
You basically ignor the answers that you recieve, to the very questions that you ask. If it was 'off topic' then why did you even ask then or now? I aint hopping. I gave you the reasons. You know that 'color' does, in fact, show the changing affects as what is observed (ie... the wavelengths emitted by the mass exchange) you're being obtuse. each molecule has difference thresholds. It's basic common sense. the 'curve' will change, per the mass. all mass has reaction points based on the energy recieved/exchanging. Are you really unaware of photoelectric effect or even how 'color' exists. Both are completely different reaction points (thresholds) but in both frames, the energy is exchanging with the mass, and the mass is enabling different emission based on the molecular structures depends on the mass/wavelength exchange incorrect. a green is different, than a red. ie... what color is a leaf capturing the p680 nm and the hemoglobin of blood. Are either connected to the energy emitter? exactly! Hence the stupidity! threshold to reaction Do you not even recognize that is what the BB is about, in itself? because such simple logic if left out when in fact, it cannot be. ie.... the mass, is relative to the outcome (basic common sense). Do you see colors, why, how, what are they and how does it work? If you cannot sustain a footing to reality and continue to play ignorant, then why do i care if the obsolete, ignor even 'basic common sense'.
I was, maybe naively, hoping that you could state your reasons instead of trying to go through Buddhist teaching rites. Now it is not off topic, so now it would be more sensible to discuss it. I still don't know what this means. I know about colours, I know how the use of different colours change the outcome of the double slit experiment. Is that what you're referring to? Again, you're not defining your thresholds. Molecules and atoms have all kinds of thresholds, energy thresholds to give off electrons, to give off photons in different energy states, to become excited, to become off-shell and so on. You have to be specific about what you mean. The curve can change for all kinds of reasons. What mass are you referring to? Receiver plate mass? Photon mass? Electron mass? Mass of the emitting particle? Mass of the apparatus? Again, you're not being specific. Common sense is not a good argument. Anything that actually is common sense is so for a better reason. If common sense is the only argument you can give, it' a bad one. I am not unaware of either colours or the photoelectric effect. You seem to think that my lack of understanding derives of a lack of understanding of physics, when in reality, it come from the fact that you're being very vague when you're writing. Are you using the word "mass" for two different things? An object can have mass and it can also be a mass. In the latter case, I would use another word, maybe "object" (depending on circumstances). The photoelectric effect is an effect, colour is a feature of light. I don't see how that makes either of them "reaction points", but maybe that's because you after two promptings still refuse to define what it means. So give an example. You're just throwing words around, I'm not seeing the argument you're trying to make. What energy emitter? The Sun? The laser in the experiment? You're being unspecific again. Not at all, it makes it general. The experiment shows the same results on a large range of different detectors, indicating that the result is independent of the detector/screen/similar. Threshold of what? What reaction? You're being unspecific again. That what is about BB? I was talking about your grammar, how is that "what BB is about"? I know enough about black body radiation, I'm trying to figure out what your argument actually is. The mass of what? The mass of the particle going through the double slit experiment? The mass of the receiver? The mass of individual atoms or molecules of the receiver? The mass of the earth or the sun? You can't just throw words around, you have to define them if they are to have any meaning. I see colours, I understand how they work, at least according to current models. If you assume some other model, you have to state so explicitly. Basic common sense is moot. Most of the time, "common sense" is based on actual logic, even if sometimes unconsciously. If it is not, it is usually wrong.
So then, You are aware that the outcome of the double slit is incorrectly described. Attaboy! you just restated the specifics. So if the curve changes, then the pattern of the double slit, changes, just as i said. All you are doing is admitting the common sense. Actually, to sustain an honest interpretation requires an integrity to basic common sense, before any belief! scary again, you're on a spin cycle. Physics is the mathematical description of a system. Do you know the physics for the transition of 'any' element to energy? i did not ask for an equivilance (einstein), i asked if you understood the transition to the letter of math (physics). an element or molecule are both mass. One is the base unit (element) and the molecule is a combined elemental structure, with energy (light) holding them together. basic! that's not even answerable I did. Colors lasers are not what enables the p680 nor the energy upon the combining of the hemoglobin and oxygen. Perhaps reread the posts or stop being obtuse about as general as hot going to cold, based on a law but with zero cause being described You admitted that colors are different and you know that in all cases, it is the mass/element molecules and light/em/wavelengths are why. ie.... every threashold will be based on the exchange of light and elements (mass); all cases You know this but again, sustaining the common sense eludes you prior to responding I aint arguing. i opened a thread as evidence and made comments that many areas of science can be understood by sustaining the concepts (facts) found thereof
The new system, devised through computer modeling and then demonstrated experimentally... Really? I’d like to “see” that. LOL! “devised through computer modeling” Okay, “devised”?; “and then” (THEN!)...oh my.... “demonstrated experimentally”!!!!! I hurt myself when I tried to penetrate that. What is the source of this? Please? I will be inconsolable until I get that link!
No, and since you still haven't been specific about what changes you expect, I can't assess or refute it. That's not an answer to the question and I have no idea which specifics you are referring to What curve? The only curve I know about is the curve of the pattern of the pattern. And you still didn't define what mass you're referring to. That's not remotely what you were asking, at least not explicitly. If you were asking it implicitly, then you have ignored pages upon pages of my posts asking you to stop doing things implicitly. I have a fair understanding of the transition between the physical world and the mathematical representation thereof. Your wordings are non-standard and not well defined. An element is a type of atom. An atom of that element is not "the element" it is just one instance of that element. Atoms and molecules "are" not mass, they *have* mass, they are objects or particles. It is an explicit request for the definition of a "reaction point". It seems to me like giving the definition of a "reaction point" would be the obvious answer. Colours are a set of features of light. They are not arguments in themselves. In order to make the argument you're trying to make, you have to explicitly state what behaviour of what aspect of colours influence what in what way. I was under the impression that we were talking about the double slit experiment. You've not been clear with what you've been talking about again. And you've still not told me what mass you are referring to. My statement has nothing to do with heat and this statement of yours makes no comment on the statement I made about the experiment being general. Stop avoiding the arguments. Yes, colours are different. Yes, the colours emitted by an atom depends on mass and electromagnetism. You have yet to connect that to your objection to the double slit experiment. And you still haven't defined your threshold. I asked you for an argument for your objection to the double slit experiment. Definitions are important for understanding an argument. If you fail to provide proper definitions for the words I'm asking for, I'm going to have to conclude that you're avoiding the topic and that you have no will to actually explain your position, making posting here fruitless. If I thought that weird wordings would help, then I would ask for that, but now I'm asking for definitions.
The new system, devised through computer modeling and... Really? “devised”?; I’d like to see that, but it’s this that almost made my head explode!: ... and then demonstrated experimentally... “demonstrated experimentally”!!!!! I hurt myself when I tried to penetrate that. What is the source of this? Please? I will be inconsolable until I get that link!
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/a-new-way-to-trap-light-0710.html There are several ways to “trap” a beam of light — usually with mirrors, other reflective surfaces, or high-tech materials such as photonic crystals. But now researchers at MIT have discovered a new method to trap light that could find a wide variety of applications. The new system, devised through computer modeling and then demonstrated experimentally, - - - Updated - - - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/a-new-way-to-trap-light-0710.html There are several ways to “trap” a beam of light — usually with mirrors, other reflective surfaces, or high-tech materials such as photonic crystals. But now researchers at MIT have discovered a new method to trap light that could find a wide variety of applications. The new system, devised through computer modeling and then demonstrated experimentally,
Again, you do comprehend but you're being obtuse. you have ignored pages upon pages of my posts That's a lie that is just ignorance, there. Every exchange, has a different 'reaction point' based on the system. 'features'? Again, your posts reflect a borderline stupidity. What color is/are radio waves? Features ......... OMG..... Do you make this garbage up as you go along? No I dont. I will do as I want and you will either be honest or be made a fool of. you just answered it; depends on mass and electromagnetism It is 'stupid easy' The words that you need to work on are "integrity" and 'honesty' Most everyone can understand that the 'mass' of nature, are the elements and molecules ..... of nature. Kinetic energy is not mass, except to the morons that BELIEVE that natures energy is based on 'c' (speed of light). Either be honest, with yourself or dont. I have nothing to prove to you and them folk at MIT, have read what I left, for them Thanksgiving Day, 2006 as I was below ground walking thru their labs. .
Yes, but what is it? An exchange, which in itself could be a number of things, including the absorption of light by an atom, weak interactions between atoms, someone switching atoms around or even exchange of money, can have many different things that can be called reaction points, including absolute position of the particle, what part of a particle meets another particle. Your text so far has not distinguished which one you are talking about. If I don't know which one you are talking about, I might assume the wrong one and end up with faulty conclusions. I'm trying to avoid that by asking you which one you are referring to, but you have still not provided the definition. You're being vague again. Radio waves are invisible to the human eye, they also have a predefined range of wavelengths. Unless I know what argument you're trying to make, I don't know which one you want me to quote. A feature is a visible property of an object. I quote wikipedia on mass: "In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump [of dough]") is a property of a physical system or body[...]". Sure, I didn't say you had to do it, I just said you had to do it if you wanted to be understood. Since you yet again ignored my request for definitions, I'm going to have to conclude that you have no interest in being understood. Sure it depends on the mass of the particles in the laser, emitting the light, and light, being electromagnetic waves, light obviously depends on electromagnetism. This is however fully included in the double slit experiment and the experiment produces results fully compatible with that information, so why are you bringing it up? Harsh words for someone who deliberately avoids answering the questions that I have asked so many times. Are you under the impression that E=mc^2 depends on the speed of light? The presence of the speed of light in that equation has nothing to do with the actual speed of light, it is a constant of proportionality deriving from the fact that we're using non-natural units. In particle physics, natural units are used, in which E=m. As much as that's important, I wouldn't mind if you decided to be honest with me as well.
'weak' is em (all cases) and why the recieving plates of the DSE, will affect the pattern, just as I said what particle? no part. All fields ie... no atoms (particles), ever touch do radio WAVES, have a particle? If you say 'yes' then how big is that particle? ie.... please dont say 'yes' because it is that 'particle' concept that you need to let go of and there is no such thing as a particle of em; the photon is not a thing as it is not the emitted issuing the particle, but the recieving plate, is reacting to the em wave (all cases), and that changes with the mass of the plate and radio waves aint visible, but em (all cases) (it is why i used it, to throw them features in the garbage) Funny.... it looks like the folk at MIT understood and why the NEW is called a phenomenon. light IS EM. And the laser, is affected at any exchange. If it was compatible and you are sustaining an integrity to what you are posting (admitting) and the experiment, you would be back at the bench, testing, modeling, experimenting, just like they are at many universities across the world. I will not publish the math but the paradigm shift is occuring based on the very concepts and principles that I am posting, because i am the single, that is instigating it (the paradigm shift). Them aint natures units. Einstein simply enabled the use of plancks constant but HE was honest enough to realize the model was INCORRECT! Do you have such integrity? i am When i post up a thread, be certain i will give you an interpretation combining knowledge with what is real. The problem you have is that there is no book for you to pin what you are reading too. I am that initial, directly!
I notice that that isn't an answer to the question. Nothing in the text you quoted for this text mentions receiving plates, so I have no idea how the two statements are related to each other. I don't know. Since you refuse to tell me the definitions, I have no way of telling if you're referring to particles, stars, yourself or anything. Without definitions, you may as well be talking about something completely different. In the standard model, the photon is the particle associated with electromagnetism. We know that the standard model breaks down at high enough energies and that the concept of particles may be useless at those energies, but to say that that means particles don't exist at normal energy scales is like saying a truck isn't a truck because we can take it apart into things that aren't trucks on their own. The size of the particle is usually considered to be a few wavelengths long, but that is a human convention. It can be considered larger or smaller depending on how accurately we wish to confine it. None of this affects the result of the double slit experiment. So why are you using the word colour when colours are per definition visible? Why not use the words wave length all the way through? I don't understand the English in the sentence about the laser. How? I haven't even figured out what your objection is. For instance, you talk about the results depending on the receiving plate mass, but the receiving plate has at least three different masses depending on how you look at it (the entire receiver has a mass, the molecules in the receiver has a mass and the atoms in the molecules have a mass). Unless I know what mass you are referring to, I don't know which one to change and you've been systematically ignoring my requests for clarification. Having said that, the experiment has been run on receiver plates with different materials and masses without change in the result. I've asked what kind of difference you would expect, but you again refuse to answer. I didn't say they were nature's units, they are natural units. Natural units is defined as per this. Then why are you not answering my questions? I must have asked you for definitions dozens of times. Why are you avoiding and impeding honest examination? I know what my issues with your posts are and I know that they could be solved with the answers to certain questions. Why are you not letting me?
what 'text'? To say, that I didnt mention the 'receiving plates' of the DSE, is a lie. I did tell you that for the DSE, that the wavelength (single em) and the recieving plate (mass=element/molecular structure) are relevant to what pattern the DSE will exhibit! Is that true or not? Yes or no Dont answer 1 line item without a 'yes or no' to that all levels. It is just at the high energy, that it shows itself. Hold the facts, first! But let it be known that again, you know the breakdown exists yet you're being obtuse. that's a cop out. (lacking integrity) You are using the DSE like using niagra falls to was a car window. Now that is just funny. ie... how big (x, y, z) is a 'photon' at radio wave of 5m, with as you say 'a few wavelengths'? That would be a big sphere (particle). please dont answer that because I posted that question simply to represent how 'stupid' your claim is. And I could care less what is accepted as I have told you, more than once, that the old school model is wrong. That is also hilarious. To define the DSE and its evidence accurately requires an assessment to the wavelength and and mass, to be accurate. ie.... 1 wavelength and the element (mass/molecular structure) color was only used as the example to show that the mass and wavelength are ABSOLUTELY relavant to the outcome of the DSE I have. You be the one that continues to be obtuse I am directly answering you, but I am not setting up the experiment for you. I told you, directly that the wavelengths and the mass are directly relevant to the outcome and with colors, that FACT is easy to comprehend. i hate the circular crap that you keep posting, when you know that I am just being far more specifc to sustaining the experiments conditions than anyone you've ever met. I dont accept what others have done and then lie out the yahoo. I expect that you WILL either be honest and sustain such integrity or get the hell out of the sciences. I aint giving you the math. I aint setting up your experiment, and i am sick of your spin cycle, when at each post, you are admitting exactly what i am stating but with such rudeness and lack of integrity. It is sad to accept that you have even completed the experiment and not asked yourself the same questions. Check yourself, not me! You have the methodology to rehash but you are just being rude. I can not understand, why you yourself would not consider that the mass and energy (em) exchange is related to the outcome. It's weird to me, that you would consider yourself honest about the experiment, but hold a blind eye to being causal at all aspects. My professor, when i was 16, would have torn me a new behind, if i was like you. i had to prove, any change to any wavelength, to the letter or i got my work shreaded, not to mention how he got in my face and told me to either get it right or get the hell out of his face and quit wasting his time (Mark Evans 1982). Need I mention, that before I was done, that i rewrote the whole of physics regarding the exchange of mass, energy, time? No I dont, but i loved what he did with me, in not accepting the complacent methodology, just to cut corners. and i am telling you, that that interpretation is incorrect. Nature DOES not follow what many have been led to believe. There is nothing natural to words. They are just manmade creations to describe with and the comprehension of nature evolves, every generation, with words (and theorem). You must be just an old man, that is having a hard time with evolving with the current knowledge available. Heck, if 'natural units' were so pure, the word phenomenon would not be open ended to being unknown. The OP itself, is from MIT and they have shown as of 7/2013 of new phenomena, that WAS NOT available I knew it was coming, well before (hence 'energy upon mass' = 'bound state in the continuum') I am 'letting' you. I am telling you what to sustain as relavant to be causal. You are just being rude, when you know yourself that the DSE does not sustain a relavance to such a level of depth, in the existing complacency accepted frame, in reference to the wavelength, and the mass (recieving plates). YOU need to do the work, I am not going to give you sheet. I told you what to do but you want me to hold your hand and i will not. This thread aint even on the DSE and I pointed out that to comprehend what the EVIDENCE is showing at MIT (the OP), will assist with REDEFINING, the DSE. You're just being rude. You did this same thing, last year and still, you WILL NOT do the work, yourself, nor sustain any level of integrity to the word 'science'. .
Here is the full quote history: Are you not reading what I'm writing? Yes, you mention it a lot (note how, even if I think it is irrelevant, I answer any questions I am prompted to, would you do me the same courtesy?) and I never said you didn't. What I said in that statement was that I didn't mention it in the particular sentence you were quoting. Of course I know the breakdown exists, it is a part of the standard model. As I've said before, my problem with your post so far is not so much the physics as your inability to write coherent arguments and provide proper definitions. Please stop with the analogies. Your argumentative style is hard enough to understand when you're using the actual words you mean. Who said sphere? Are you under the impression that particles are the little balls you see in simulations of particles? Yes, radio waves can easily be several meters long in that method of thinking. Remember, though, that it is a purely human construction. Particles are not necessarily little balls, they are waves. The idea that photons are a few wavelengths long comes from the fact that that's roughly the size of the quanta of light being sent around. However, it is still a wave, it spreads out a lot further but is a lot weaker at those lengths. The claim is defended. Again, you're misreading. When I say none of this matters for the double slit experiment, I was referring to the human-defined size of the photon, not wavelength, which I have already stated does affect the pattern. You have to read the text I am quoting as well, or you'll take every single sentence out of context. You're a bit vague on the usage of "outcome". Yes, some properties of the pattern seen in the double slit experiment depend on the wavelength of the light source, however, this effect is understood and is fully compatible with the conclusions drawn from the experiment, so in that sense, the true "outcome", the conclusions, are unchanged. Since I asked for you objections to the outcome of the experiment, I would at least expect an answer which disagrees with the outcome of the experiment. I'm not being obtuse, but I'm being very careful to understand every part of what you're saying, or I will get things wrong. Colour and wavelengths, while closely related, are not exactly the same thing (as you say, radio waves are for instance invisible to the human eye) so I assume that when you're switching between the words, you're making some kind of distinction. I have, on several if not many occasions asked you to define the words you're using. You have failed to do so on every single occasion. I agree that wave lengths are important to the pattern, but since the only way you would mention it was by repeating the word "colors" and stating that it falsifies the outcome of the experiment (which it doesn't) instead of providing the full argument, it took us two pages instead of two lines to even figure out what you said. I'm not being circular, the buck stops with you. As soon as you state which mass it is you think influences the experiment, we can be on our way. Do you mean that the mass of the particles emitting light influences the wavelength and that that is how it influences the experiment? I'll "admit" to anything you say that I deem to be correct. My main problem with your posts is still understanding the incomplete arguments and incorrect sentences. If I received any argument with the same argumentative style and coherency as what you have presented here, I would acted the same way. I have asked myself these questions as well. In fact, when you refuse to tell me which mass you are referring to, I consider the influence of the mass of the earth, the apparatus, the laser, the particles in the laser, the photons, the slit plate, the receiving plate, the atoms and molecules in the different parts of the apparatus and so on. None of them have an influence large enough to discredit the conclusions of the experiment as far as I know. I am willing to go and do the experiment again if required, but I would need to know which mass' influence I'd be measuring. My guess is once you tell me what objection it is you're really having, I'll be able to explain it without doing the experiment again, but I can't tell until you define what you mean. You mention later in this post "mass (recieving plates)", so for the moment I'm going to interpret that to mean that it is the mass of the particles of the receiver plates or the entire receiver plates you refer to. However, this experiment has been performed with a large number of detectors of a large range of different masses, materials, reading techniques, efficiencies and so on and so far, the same result has come out, meaning that it would not be an objection to the outcome of the experiment. Again, you're not reading what I'm writing, are you? This has nothing to do with what's natural or what nature does. It is a type of units that are used in some sciences and that have been named "natural units".(*) I still haven't seen any explicit definitions and seeing how that's what I've been asking for, that's hardly allowing anything. I'm willing to do the work, but I'm not setting up the experiment just to find out that you were referring to something I already know about but you couldn't explain properly. I was quite willing to be civil but it is frustrating to ask for clarification several times and get ignored.
Good start I did. Em are fields in perpendicular planes (faraday fact) morons call wave particles Bull. They are measured. i have built loop ferrite antenna They are or they are not. Apparently you dont even know what you are saying now you just tripped yourself up, even of the standard model. In the standard model the photon is irrelevant to the wavelength but more for the amplitude of the em. You cant keep it straight for either side of the conversation. What is spread out? With this: Of course I know the breakdown exists, it is a part of the standard model Does the recieving plates mass affect the outcome? Bull crap. The wavelengths are absolutely relavant, hence the peaks and troughs. Apparently you've never done the experiment, even in black and white I have but the reading problem aint mine. that last part is an understatement Red is a different wavelength than green, every time. attaboy the color shares that the MASS (element/molecular structure) of the recieving plate, are just as important and why the DSE as it is, is incorrectly defined.
Both. Again, you know that the MASS is what emits (at the origination of the wavelength), and yet forget that to even observe the pattern at the recieving plate is emitting, to even see the results. Did that build a bridge?
That doesn't mean they're spherical, does it? As opposed to the kind of genius it takes to put together an ad hominem? Would it be too much to ask you to stop with the name calling and maybe provide an argument? Under the wave interpretation of light, the size of the photon is usually defined to be the size over which the amplitude of the wave is more than some value. What value is used for that is not defined by nature but is decided depending on how resistant to fluctuations the person doing the calculations wants the answer to be. If you chose more than zero, the photon is infinite but that is clearly a useless definition so it is generally not used. Most of the time, one picks a number like sqrt(2)/2 or e^(-2), which makes the size of the photon a few wavelengths long. It can be noted that since size isn't an obvious property for a wave, so the size of the photon in that calculation has little or no bearing on reality, it is merely humans making things up. Well, it is true that they can be either or both. Depends on what you mean by irrelevant. Properties of the photon, such as its energy and momentum is relevant to the wavelength. What's your point? Of the entire receiver or the particles in the receiver. It couldn't be the entire receiver, the answer would not change if you duct taped a lead block to the receiver since it would still be too far away from the actual experiment to make a difference. Depends on what you mean by outcome. The mass of the particles in the receiver can alter the amplitude of the pattern but it cannot affect the overall shape of the pattern. Since the conclusions drawn from the experiment does not rely on the amplitude of the pattern, the mass' influence on the amplitude is irrelevant for the conclusion. Unless the mass of the receiver would completely remove the entire signal (at which point I would say you had made a bad choice of receiver) the conclision would stand. Even if you picked such a bad receiver, it would make you unable to draw conclusions, it would not negate the conclusions we can draw from the experiment using a better receiver. The conclusion from the experiment is that interference appears. What size the interference pattern will have depends on the wavelength, but the conclusion that interference patterns appear is not changed. Your problem is mainly in writing, but I wouldn't overestimate your reading comprehension either, you've misunderstood me on several occasions. Colours are always visible, wavelengths are not always visible. Therefore, they cannot be the same thing. One gives rise to the other under certain circumstances, but that's not the same as equality. The mass of the particles of the receiving plate is important for the amplitude of the pattern. The wavelength is important for the amplitude and the size of the pattern. None of them alter the overall shape of the pattern, which is the only thing needed to draw the conclusions that are usually drawn.
Do 'waves' have a radius based on the 'fields' of E and M? Yes or no I aint arguing. I told you the OP offers evidence to assist in comprehending what you apparently have no idea of and with examples. Have you even observed the implications of the OP besides just arguing with me on the dse? If there was no value to the wave, it would not exist. The problem you are having is I dont see you having a comprehension of what that energy is. ie.... the fields are what cause all motion to any mass, all cases. That would mean you are making up what you want. Nature does not define what depends. Are you wearing your depends? You are funny. Why not just make up what you want on all cases, if there is such a latitude? Size is absolutely relevant as the fields affect an area I guess to make believe but not reality. And the fields? Do you just forget them, when they are what is causing ALL momentum, to any particle (mass)? You are being made a fool of by your lack of comprehending the cause of any measured 'energy'. the model you are using is wrong. PERIOD! ie... back to the drawing board, across the board! gibberish That's a rediculous claim. How do you think a circuit works? Are you suggesting, that the wavelength of all em are the same and nothing can affect them? Geeze, you're getting in wave over you hed. ie.... walking the planck, is short and you've drowneded okey dokey Now I am practically falling out of my chair with laughter. you just admitted that the mass is relevant of the recieving plate and versus observing the cause, the reason and finding that middle groud between what is observable and what is not, you claim that a 'bad choice' of mass is why. Dude you are hilarious and obsolete. So basically because someone is color blind, we need to change all stop signs? and are the fields causing the interferance? sure they are. The appearance does not even show without the reciever, let alone what emits Without the proper wavelength, there would be no color.... Wow again... WOW! You and i are equal but not with the same integrity to science. I could say, that some are just stupid, but I like equality as a benchmark. now you are suggesting that particles and amplitude are associated but em are fields and there are no particles of fields No sheet and the pattern observed is relative to the mass, wavelength, interferance of fields and noted when an integrity to science is sustained. I mention sphere (radius) and you had a hard time comprehending that, but have no problem with concluding a shape is observable I cant help but make fun of you as it both cracks me up and saddens me to read how simple it is for you to just ignor nature
Yes. Again, it is a wave so exactly how large this radius is depends on how well confined you want it to be. However, this radius is only in the plane of the fields, the length of the particle in question is in general different, making the shape closer to a cylinder or a ellipsoid, both of which have radii. If you want to argue that photons are spherical, you have to argue that the radius is the same in all directions, not just in the plane of the fields. I read the quote you gave, the article it was quoted from and the paper the article described. This breakthrough is technological in nature, the interesting thing about the discovery is that we can use this new information to build new and interesting things that may help us later. Not even the authors of the paper pretend like this is some fundamental physical discovery. The idea existed even in the 20ies and had been proven for several cases already, according to the authors. I take back the sentence where I downplayed your inability to comprehend English. I am not talking about any value of the light in itself but the value which humans expect it to conform to. I haven't been using any of my understanding of energy in this discussion because, as I've said earlier, I'm having trouble enough as it is understanding what statements you are trying to make. So far, most of my objections have been attempts to pin down exactly what your objections are. And don't try to act as if it is me being bad at comprehension, I've seen your user name's activity on this forum and others, people all over the internet complain about your inability to convey information efficiently. Again, you have to read the sentence in context, not just pull out words and assume they mean what you happen to be thinking at the moment. I have been telling you all along that it is a made up concept and therefore, we can limit it as we want. The made up concept happens to be closely related to a physical concept which isn't defined by humans but by nature, only it would be a hassle to write down, so the human version of it is a simplification. I'm using the word depends where I think it fits. If things I tell you about depend on other things, then I will say so. I don't have a quota on how often I can use a word. Because not all cases are cases where the concept isn't physical. If we have a physical, easily measured property, we can measure and quote it. The photon is not bounded, it does not have a size in the same way a cardboard box does but it has a spatial occupancy. We try to describe the size by approximating the photon to a bounded object but we know that that's just an approximation. The different values come from the fact that the approximation can be done in different ways and which one is used depends on who does it. Note that all the ambiguity comes from our simplification, not from nature. Yes, I never said it wasn't relevant, just that it is not obvious exactly how we define it. Mostly, the size of a particle is defined as the region in which the particle has a non-negligible wave function. Exactly how large that is depends on how small a wave function you are willing to neglect. Why would I forget them? I have no doubt that the model is incomplete, but you have yet to put together an argument against it. If you think my argument is that all electromagnetic wavelengths are the same, then you have after three pages not even understood my position. The physical process that is measured in the experiment happens at the slits. If you want to alter the shape of the pattern, you would have to influence the wavelength before or while the photon passes the slits. Once the photons arrive at the receiving plate, they are in a pattern. If you alter the wavelength then, then you have the same patter but with different wavelengths. By doing so, you may influence the ability to detect the particle (altering the amplitude of the measured pattern) but the number of photons at any given point on the detector (which is what gives the shape of the pattern) remains unchanged. Puns. Hilarious. Now, can we get back to the discussion? Ok, good, you accept that the mass does not have an influence on the shape of the pattern. Well, yes. If you change the detector for a block of wood, you're not going to get very good results, are you? I never said it was a bad choice of mass, just a bad choice of detector. What did I tell you about the analogies? Yes. Why are you talking about the receiver now? The text you quoted was about the wavelength, not the receiver. I know how colours and wavelengths are related, that colours are a direct function of wavelengths, but what I'm talking about is equality. For instance, light with wavelength of 660 nm would be perceived as red by a non-colourblind human. That is not the same as saying that the length 660 nm *is* the colour red. Nope. I quote wikipedia: "Equality is always defined such that things that are equal have all and only the same properties". I bet there is at least one property which we differ on, such as country of origin. Only you have suggested fields have no particles, and you have done so very insufficiently. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The pattern has several properties. They include shape and amplitude. The amplitude depends on lots of different things and is not very interesting in itself. The shape of the pattern is influenced by the wavelength and not by the mass of the receiver. The conclusions of the experiment is based on the shape of the pattern and not on the amplitude of the pattern. Therefore, the mass of the receiver does not influence the conclusions of the experiment. Most of your entertainment in this thread derives from your inability to understand what I'm writing, or simply putting words in my mouth.
