Short pulser.

at

In the semiclassical picture, which is all you need for almost anything in engineering, that's right. Light obeys Maxwell's equations to absurd accuracy otherwise. (Which, may I say, are the quantum-mechanically and relativistically correct description of an EM field in vacuo, at least in the weak-field limit and at ordinary energies.)

Yup. It's quite a bit clearer in, say, a gamma ray scintillator, where one photon gets you a whole bunch of electron-hole pairs. Although there are higher order correlations in photocurrents that I don't think are there in thermionic currents--if you're detecting light from the red end of the spectrum of some hot source, you can see the classical fluctuations of the field as well as the shot noise. That's how Hanbury-Brown's intensity interferometer worked. (see

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net

On a sunny day (Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:25:16 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

lose

photon,

Yes, you cannot argue with mathemagicians. I had this wonderful idea about string theory and multiple universes a few days ago. You know perhaps that some of those wild theories predict the existence of many universes, and each one different at that, for example in some other one you would be a cat ;-)

Now to disprove that idea (of multiple universes), I reasoned that IF there were infinite other universes, and all were different, THEN in one of those math must be different so in that math no multiple universes could exists. That would prove there cannot be multiple universes tha tare all fully different. Of course the mathemagicians reason that even if all universes were different, still the math in those would be the same, sort of a self declared holinism (word) of math, I hope this clarifies it, If not, do not worry I'd say.

in:

corrections.

atomic clocks,

relative

and the pendulums get larger.

asymmetry in the motion.

those oriented vertically.

in spectral width from an atomic clock.

Clueless asshole, as usual.

With unexplained anomalies. No, it apparently isn't engineering.

Galileo's two approaches were off from what GR predicted, as well.

in:

corrections.

atomic clocks,

relative

and the pendulums get larger.

asymmetry in the motion.

those oriented vertically.

in spectral width from an atomic clock.

Wiki:

arXiv

If you own any relativity books, which one is it? Ken

ge

rkin

ose

and =3D

nks:

k him=3D

ve

d

ion in-between them,

last few years

Dang my English is terrible, I hope you can forgive me. (The sad thing is it's my first language. I remember some summer when all my friends got to start school early and learn Spanish.... I had to stay outside and play.... I was so sad.)

George H.

such

b...

thread/thread/ff8349...

hread/463f7......

" I meant statistically."

Sorry, Photons are such slippery 'things'.

George H.

, such

.

ead/thread/ff8349...

thread/463f7......

d d e

=A0 Oh, photons do exist then.

If that's the only difference in the shot noise it's pretty small. (Dang hard to see the HBT effect, I tried once and failed miserablly. I wanted to do it cheap with a photodiode.) Say can your 'garden variety' photodiode detect intensity interference?

George H.

t- Hide quoted text -

at

(see

It should be able to, if the source is filtered thermal light and you're measuring at frequencies well below kT/h. Sunlight viewed with a pair of 900 nm photodiodes such as BPV22NFs might work pretty well--perhaps you could measure the angular diameter of the Sun that way, though I suspect they'd have to be almost superposed optically for that to work--maybe with a plate beamsplitter.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net

lose

There is no such thing as a fraction of a photon.

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

lose

one photon,

Did you know that you can image an object without interacting with it? ie by not hitting it with photons?

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

(Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:24:42 +0000) Browny copied:

Stolen:

Pauli describes it most accurately as "not even wrong".

You are even drifting from subject, have a reading and comprehension problem, are a braindead Einstein dingleberry, and are wrong on top of that. You do not even understand the issue, and just parrot from some book. I talked about the double slit buckyball here long before you even mentioned it, you retard.

That you are an idiot, same as Larkong.

Only in your extremely limited imagination. But keep believing in it, your dingleberry friends will love you for it, and it may give you that feeling that you were properly educated.

hahahahah

's physicks:

..

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 arrow to link for the visual impaired

lem,

ned it,

It was a newspaper item some years ago. Everybody knows about it.

"Wave-particle duality of C60" Markus Arndt , Olaf Nairz, Julian Voss-Andreae, Claudia Keller,Gerbrand van der Zouw, and Anton Zeilinger Nature 401, 680-682, 14.October 1999

I'm afraid that in this instance, Larkin happens to be right and you happen to be wrong, not to mention barking mad.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

God believes in Einstein:

"Einstein was correct about the nature of the relationships between time and space, and energy and matter." --

"... Newton's model has now been threatened. Einstein has muddied Newton's water and now that 'everyone knows' there are four dimensions of space-time and everything is relative, it doesn't matter which way you look at it. It makes no difference to relativity if the Sun revolves around the Earth, or the Earth revolves around the Sun. Everything is relative, depending on your point of view." --

Cheers! Rich the Philosophizer

arrow to link for the visual impaired

A breathless sensationalist summary in Wired of an experiment on FLASH about a year ago. They have moved on since then and FLASH can now work at even shorter wavelengths. Yes it might show that at these insanely high coherent photon fluxes the standard atom model is a bit flakey.

Xenon atom is about 10^-10m and their peak beam flux is now 10^36 /m^2 which means there are something like 100000 photons overlapping with the volume of the atom at any one time. That non-linear multiphoton processes can occur in that environment is not too surprising.

It seems to be lost on you that the linear accelerator that powers FLASH and the non-linear concentrator to make the flash only a few femtoseconds long depends critically on Einsteins theory of relativity.

The paper in PRL is somewhat more guarded about the claims made and it looks much more like a resonance effect that is specific to 4d resonance modes in Xenon (possibly in Radon too though that would be a tricky experiment to do but would be worth doing).

Only in your opinion. Quantum mechanics (more particularly QCD) and relativity have stood up to every experimental test made so far. This experiment might require some adjustments to allow for high coherent flux multiphoton effects. But any refinements needed to explain these interesting results of Xenon will alter the game much and in the low flux case will make exactly the same predictions as present theories.

it,

It is funny how all the Usenet nutters insist that "Einstein was wrong" but then propose their own radical crank theories that make no sense at all. Usually in long incoherent rants and ALL IN CAPITALS as if that makes their wacky claims somehow more valid.

You are almost as demented as Hanson. Keep breathing the mercury fumes it might eventually clear your head.

Regards, Martin Brown

It is you being the asshole.

I presume then that you mean the anomalous behaviour seen during Earth flybys for which an empirical correction has been published in PRL.

As usual you are vague enough to be able to shift your ground. New Scientist did a piece on this Earth flyby anomaly last year:

These systematic errors are very small, but they are outside the expected error budget and so are interesting. Gravity probe will probably shed more light on this since it is instrumented for the right sorts of experiment rather than relying on serendipitous measurements.

By a relatively small amount of extra acceleration. I suspect there is something wrong with the detailed Earth-Moon ephemeris that very slightly affects Earth flybys. Previous systematic errors in pulsar timing have been traced to errors in the symbolic algebra package translation to Fortran code and it would not be so surprising to find another such error in the very opaque machine generated perturbation series for the Earth and Moon system. Once they have a functional form for the discreprancy it is usually possible to find the root cause. Perhaps this one really does demonstrate some new physics or detection of some old dark matter lurking in orbit around the Earth.

Regards, Martin Brown

IKWYABWAI is your best shot. Go for it.

re

This isn't a case of "we know what you are ..." We've all known what you are for a long time now. You've never posted anything worth the trouble of reading, which makes you permanently clueless, and you've been an asshole since you first posted here.

Martin Brown is a long way from being clueless, and he certainly doesn't act like an asshole around here - which means that you are not only a clueless asshole, but also a spiteful idiot, not that I really need to remind the rest of the group of this, since you have parading both unattractive aspects of your unsavoury character for quite some time now.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Know Thyself.

Cheers! Rich

Why should the group care about your reminders? You don't design electronics.

John