On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:

<snip>

> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
> the distinction between model and measurement.

> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
>
> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
> on models of the components behavior.

The conflict between model and measurement really exist.

The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.

1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.

2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
given by the Planck's relationship:

E = h.f ; E = h/T

T = h/E

A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.

h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second

For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.

If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ

E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules

Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.

Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
(here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).

To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:

N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.

And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).

Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.

Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.

In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).

But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
at these levels of time duration.

So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.

Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.

If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
on the wavelength.

For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).

No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:26:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> given by the Planck's relationship:
>
> E = h.f ; E = h/T
>
> T = h/E
>

What gives you this bright idea, odious kapo?

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:26:57 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> > given by the Planck's relationship:
> >
> > E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >
> > T = h/E
> >
> What gives you this bright idea, odious kapo?

A single wave has never been measured.
Science knows its measurements are collective.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 8:31:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> > given by the Planck's relationship:
> >
> > E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >
> > T = h/E
> >
> What gives you this bright idea, odious kapo?

It's not difficult to visualize that, even when for a mentally impaired cretin like you it could be impossible.

I always perceived the Planck's photon as a point-like quantum event that propagates at c speed and carry E = h/T energy.

QM had it right when Bohr conceived discrete energy transitions, inspired by Planck and Balmer.

There are enough proves, in one century of QM, about almost instantaneous transitions of energy in atoms, which are due
to absorption or emission of point-like photons (like one bullet).

The almost instantaneous transitions, for the emission of photons, have to last about the same time T, along which the photon
carry energy.

* A 550 nm photon last 1.83E-15 sec, compatible with "instantaneous transitions" in the atom to lower state of energy (visible light).
* A 3 cm photon last 100 picosec, compatible with "instantaneous transitions" in the atom to lower state of energy (10 Ghz MW).
* A 30 m photon last 100 nanosec, compatible with "instantaneous transitions" in the atom to lower state of energy (10 Mhz HF).

The energy of a 550 nm photon is 5.75E-20 Joules. For a single atom, to emit 1 Watt, it would be required that emit continuously
1.74E+19 photons during 1 second, which is RIDICULOUS.

So, what to think? That two atoms emit 8.7E+18 photons during 1 second each? Four atoms emitting 4.35E+18 photons/sec each?

What? 10 billion atoms emitting 1.74 billion photons/sec each?

The real numbers, for this planckian model, are in between. It will depend on the elements, density and the Avogadro number.

But, the ugly truth, for the lazy and idiots scientists, is that at microscopic level (if you could peep things at picometers scale),
is that nothing like a smooth, cumulative sinusoidal waveform would be in the making. Then, simple macrolevel models come
to the rescue, and a single sinusoidal waveform is enough to be applied in classic physics.

The fact is that, just by chance, Planck found his expression for the BBC radiation which, not only the quantum of action h was
invented, but also the quanta of thermodynamic energy kT were also there. A fact that most scientists dismiss.

Then, to deliver the energy of the quantum of action h = h = 1.054571817E-34 J.s, a time T is required.

But, tied to the equation c = λ f = λ/T, the value of T is strictly dictated by T = λ/c. In the macroworld, f = 1/T = c/λ is used.

Hertz knew it, and measured it. Lenard. his pupil, knew it and measured it.

Einstein, the cretin, fucked it all up, and imbeciles like you are partners in the worst crime of science since the invention of the wheel.

On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
>> the distinction between model and measurement.
>
>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
>>
>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
>> on models of the components behavior.
>
> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
>
> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
>
> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
>
> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> given by the Planck's relationship:
>
> E = h.f ; E = h/T
>
> T = h/E
>
> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
>
> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
>
> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
>
> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
>
> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
>
> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
>
> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
>
> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
>
> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
>
> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
>
> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
>
> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
>
> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
>
> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
> at these levels of time duration.
>
> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
>
> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
>
> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
> on the wavelength.
>
> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
>
> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.

And interference appears how?

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
> >> the distinction between model and measurement.
> >
> >> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
> >> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
> >> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
> >>
> >> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
> >> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
> >> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
> >> on models of the components behavior.
> >
> > The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
> >
> > The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
> >
> > 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
> >
> > 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> > given by the Planck's relationship:
> >
> > E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >
> > T = h/E
> >
> > A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
> >
> > h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
> >
> > For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
> >
> > If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
> >
> > E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
> >
> > Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
> > T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
> >
> > Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
> > (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
> >
> > To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
> > separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
> >
> > N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
> >
> > And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
> >
> > Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
> >
> > Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
> >
> > In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
> > microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
> >
> > But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
> > at these levels of time duration.
> >
> > So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
> > picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
> > accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
> > themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
> >
> > Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
> > particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
> >
> > If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
> > weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
> > on the wavelength.
> >
> > For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> > only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
> >
> > No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
> And interference appears how?
>
> Sylvia.

I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.

Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.

After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.

On 23-Mar-23 1:07 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
>>>> the distinction between model and measurement.
>>>
>>>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
>>>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
>>>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
>>>>
>>>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
>>>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
>>>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
>>>> on models of the components behavior.
>>>
>>> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
>>>
>>> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
>>>
>>> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
>>>
>>> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
>>> given by the Planck's relationship:
>>>
>>> E = h.f ; E = h/T
>>>
>>> T = h/E
>>>
>>> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
>>>
>>> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
>>>
>>> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
>>>
>>> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
>>>
>>> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
>>>
>>> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
>>> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
>>>
>>> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
>>> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
>>>
>>> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
>>> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
>>>
>>> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
>>>
>>> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
>>>
>>> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
>>>
>>> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
>>>
>>> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
>>> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
>>>
>>> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
>>> at these levels of time duration.
>>>
>>> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
>>> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
>>> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
>>> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
>>>
>>> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
>>> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
>>>
>>> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
>>> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
>>> on the wavelength.
>>>
>>> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
>>> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
>>>
>>> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
>> And interference appears how?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.
>
> Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.
>
> After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.
>

That's just word salad. We have a perfectly good theoretical model of
the behaviour of photons. If you keep importing aspect of that theory to
address shortfalls in your own ideas, you'll eventually just be calling
QM your own.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:12:32 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-Mar-23 1:07 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
> >>>> the distinction between model and measurement.
> >>>
> >>>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
> >>>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
> >>>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
> >>>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
> >>>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
> >>>> on models of the components behavior.
> >>>
> >>> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
> >>>
> >>> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
> >>>
> >>> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
> >>>
> >>> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> >>> given by the Planck's relationship:
> >>>
> >>> E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >>>
> >>> T = h/E
> >>>
> >>> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
> >>>
> >>> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
> >>>
> >>> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
> >>>
> >>> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
> >>>
> >>> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
> >>>
> >>> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
> >>> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
> >>>
> >>> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
> >>> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
> >>>
> >>> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
> >>> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
> >>>
> >>> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
> >>>
> >>> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
> >>>
> >>> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
> >>>
> >>> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
> >>> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
> >>>
> >>> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
> >>> at these levels of time duration.
> >>>
> >>> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
> >>> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
> >>> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
> >>> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
> >>>
> >>> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
> >>> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
> >>>
> >>> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
> >>> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
> >>> on the wavelength.
> >>>
> >>> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> >>> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
> >>>
> >>> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
> >> And interference appears how?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.
> >
> > Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.
> >
> > After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.
> >
> That's just word salad. We have a perfectly good theoretical model of
> the behaviour of photons. If you keep importing aspect of that theory to
> address shortfalls in your own ideas, you'll eventually just be calling
> QM your own.
>
> Sylvia.

The odious kapo is going off the deep end.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:12:32 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-Mar-23 1:07 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
> >>>> the distinction between model and measurement.
> >>>
> >>>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
> >>>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
> >>>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
> >>>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
> >>>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
> >>>> on models of the components behavior.
> >>>
> >>> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
> >>>
> >>> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
> >>>
> >>> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
> >>>
> >>> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> >>> given by the Planck's relationship:
> >>>
> >>> E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >>>
> >>> T = h/E
> >>>
> >>> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
> >>>
> >>> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
> >>>
> >>> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
> >>>
> >>> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
> >>>
> >>> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
> >>>
> >>> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
> >>> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
> >>>
> >>> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
> >>> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
> >>>
> >>> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
> >>> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
> >>>
> >>> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
> >>>
> >>> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
> >>>
> >>> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
> >>>
> >>> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
> >>> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
> >>>
> >>> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
> >>> at these levels of time duration.
> >>>
> >>> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
> >>> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
> >>> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
> >>> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
> >>>
> >>> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
> >>> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
> >>>
> >>> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
> >>> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
> >>> on the wavelength.
> >>>
> >>> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> >>> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
> >>>
> >>> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
> >> And interference appears how?
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.
> >
> > Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.
> >
> > After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.
> >
> That's just word salad. We have a perfectly good theoretical model of
> the behaviour of photons. If you keep importing aspect of that theory to
> address shortfalls in your own ideas, you'll eventually just be calling
> QM your own.
>
> Sylvia.

And what does your good theoretical model of the behavior of photons tell you about how do behave 10E+18 photons
within a 100 mW, 10 mm² thick laser beam?

Have you figured it out, theoretically?

On 23-Mar-23 1:28 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:12:32 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23-Mar-23 1:07 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
>>>>>> the distinction between model and measurement.
>>>>>
>>>>>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
>>>>>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
>>>>>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
>>>>>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
>>>>>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
>>>>>> on models of the components behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
>>>>> given by the Planck's relationship:
>>>>>
>>>>> E = h.f ; E = h/T
>>>>>
>>>>> T = h/E
>>>>>
>>>>> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
>>>>>
>>>>> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
>>>>>
>>>>> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
>>>>>
>>>>> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
>>>>> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
>>>>> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
>>>>>
>>>>> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
>>>>> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
>>>>>
>>>>> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
>>>>>
>>>>> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
>>>>> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
>>>>>
>>>>> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
>>>>> at these levels of time duration.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
>>>>> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
>>>>> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
>>>>> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
>>>>>
>>>>> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
>>>>> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
>>>>> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
>>>>> on the wavelength.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
>>>>> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
>>>>>
>>>>> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
>>>> And interference appears how?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.
>>>
>>> Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.
>>>
>>> After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.
>>>
>> That's just word salad. We have a perfectly good theoretical model of
>> the behaviour of photons. If you keep importing aspect of that theory to
>> address shortfalls in your own ideas, you'll eventually just be calling
>> QM your own.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> And what does your good theoretical model of the behavior of photons tell you about how do behave 10E+18 photons
> within a 100 mW, 10 mm² thick laser beam?
>
> Have you figured it out, theoretically?
>

I don't know what you're even asking.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:58:46 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23-Mar-23 1:28 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:12:32 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 23-Mar-23 1:07 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
> >>>>>> the distinction between model and measurement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
> >>>>>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
> >>>>>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
> >>>>>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
> >>>>>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
> >>>>>> on models of the components behavior.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> >>>>> given by the Planck's relationship:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >>>>>
> >>>>> T = h/E
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
> >>>>>
> >>>>> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
> >>>>> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
> >>>>> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
> >>>>> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
> >>>>> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
> >>>>> at these levels of time duration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
> >>>>> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
> >>>>> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
> >>>>> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
> >>>>> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
> >>>>> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
> >>>>> on the wavelength.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> >>>>> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
> >>>> And interference appears how?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.
> >>>
> >>> After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.
> >>>
> >> That's just word salad. We have a perfectly good theoretical model of
> >> the behaviour of photons. If you keep importing aspect of that theory to
> >> address shortfalls in your own ideas, you'll eventually just be calling
> >> QM your own.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > And what does your good theoretical model of the behavior of photons tell you about how do behave 10E+18 photons
> > within a 100 mW, 10 mm² thick laser beam?
> >
> > Have you figured it out, theoretically?
> >
> I don't know what you're even asking.
>
> Sylvia.

Do your theoretical model of photons support emission/absorption of photons as particles and motion of photons in space
as waves?

Do they verify classic laws of optics? A single photon?

Do they have wavelength and frequency?

Do they originate or terminate on atoms as a whole, or regenerate there with a different energy levels (one or two photons)?

Do they verify pair production or annihilation?

Are they capable of photon-photon scattering?

Which is your theoretical model, in simple words (no word salad)?

On 23-Mar-23 2:20 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:58:46 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23-Mar-23 1:28 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 11:12:32 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 23-Mar-23 1:07 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 10:53:41 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
>>>>>>>> the distinction between model and measurement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
>>>>>>>> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
>>>>>>>> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
>>>>>>>> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
>>>>>>>> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
>>>>>>>> on models of the components behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off the device.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
>>>>>>> given by the Planck's relationship:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E = h.f ; E = h/T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T = h/E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is carried away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/λ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E = h c/λ = 5.75E-20 Joules
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one carrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time
>>>>>>> T = λ/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec = 1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in T seconds and vanishes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second, such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE
>>>>>>> (here you see ONE ASPECT of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal
>>>>>>> separation between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser (546.45 TeraHertz).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency of a single, continuous wave of light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly proposed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by frequency meters. The same thing happens in the
>>>>>>> microwave region, where instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate window is set to 1 sec).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency
>>>>>>> at these levels of time duration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
>>>>>>> picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is just
>>>>>>> accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which present
>>>>>>> themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure, in
>>>>>>> particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
>>>>>>> weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present, depending
>>>>>>> on the wavelength.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
>>>>>>> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
>>>>>> And interference appears how?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say that the emission of billions of photons per quantum unit of time lower than T is synchronous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the incredible high number of phase shifted photons play a role in cancelling part of their energy carrying process.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, photons are like infinitely small blobs of energy traveling through a quantum field. At least, that's what Dirac thought.
>>>>>
>>>> That's just word salad. We have a perfectly good theoretical model of
>>>> the behaviour of photons. If you keep importing aspect of that theory to
>>>> address shortfalls in your own ideas, you'll eventually just be calling
>>>> QM your own.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> And what does your good theoretical model of the behavior of photons tell you about how do behave 10E+18 photons
>>> within a 100 mW, 10 mm² thick laser beam?
>>>
>>> Have you figured it out, theoretically?
>>>
>> I don't know what you're even asking.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Do your theoretical model of photons support emission/absorption of photons as particles and motion of photons in space
> as waves?

No. In quantum mechanics, the waves are part of the math which
determines the probability that a photon will be found within a
particular volume of space.

>
> Do they verify classic laws of optics?

In quantum mechanics, the waves interfere in the math in the same way
that waves that do exist interfere in the real world.

A single photon?

The classic laws of optics have nothing to say about a single photon.
>
> Do they have wavelength and frequency?

Yes.
>
> Do they originate or terminate on atoms as a whole, or regenerate there with a different energy levels (one or two photons)?

I do not know what you mean by that.
>
> Do they verify pair production or annihilation?

They describe that. You keep misusing the word "verify".

>
> Are they capable of photon-photon scattering?

Yes.
>
> Which is your theoretical model, in simple words (no word salad)?
>

I'm referring to quantum mechanics, of course.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> On 23-Mar-23 10:26 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 5:10:16?PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Your assertions are axiomatic and circular. You fail to grok
> >> the distinction between model and measurement.
> >
> >> One problem is, we have labs full of expensive gadgets,
> >> with digital readouts in Hz and nm, which people take on
> >> faith, without thought to the gizzards of the device.
> >>
> >> Even the designers of those devices haven't really thought
> >> it through: the readouts are don't measure femtoseconds and
> >> nm, but INTERPRETATIONS of various measurements, based
> >> on models of the components behavior.
> >
> > The conflict between model and measurement really exist.
> >
> > The problem appears when light is modeled as a continuous wave, which is
> > not.
> >
> > 1) In any laser, light appears and disappear just by turning on and off
> > the device.
> >
> > 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY
> > during ONE PERIOD OF TIME given by the Planck's relationship:
> >
> > E = h.f ; E = h/T
> >
> > T = h/E
> >
> > A photon carry energy E = h/T, which delivers to the receiver in T
> > seconds. After that, the photon disappears.
> >
> > h = 1.054571817E-34 Joules x second
> >
> > For a 1 Watt laser that is active for 1 second, 1 Joule of energy is
> > carried away.
> >
> > If the laser is a perfect green 550 nm laser, the energy of A SINGLE
> > PHOTON is E = h.f = h c/?
> >
> > E = h c/? = 5.75E-20 Joules
> >
> > Then, a 550 nm/1 Watt laser creates 1.74E+19 photons/sec, each one
> > Tcarrying 5.75E-20 Joules during a time = ?/c = 550nm/3E+08 sec =
> > T1.83E-15 sec. Reaching its receiver, the photon delivers its energy in
> > TT seconds and vanishes.
> >
> > Due to the huge amount of photons in 1 Watt, 1.74E+19 photons/second,
> > such flow is INTERPRETED AS A CONTINUOUS WAVE (here you see ONE ASPECT
> > of the conflicting duality wave-particle).
> >
> > To APPEAR that a continuous wave really exists, photons are evenly
> > spaced along the 1 second time window, so that the temporal separation
> > between different photons of the 1 Watt laser beam is:
> >
> > N(T) = 1/1.83E-15 = 546,448,090,000,000 units of T per EACH SECOND.
> >
> > And N(T) is what is considered as the FREQUENCY of the 550 nm laser
> > (546.45 TeraHertz).
> >
> > Now, the question is if it's valid to consider this value as a frequency
> > of a single, continuous wave of light.
> >
> > Maybe Jane has a valid point, even when the question was incorrectly
> > proposed.
> >
> > In one sense, light has a frequency, which could be measured by
> > frequency meters. The same thing happens in the microwave region, where
> > instruments deliver a reading of frequency every second (if the gate
> > window is set to 1 sec).
> >
> > But, microscopically, and understanding that light is composed of
> > CORPUSCLES (AKA PHOTONS), light has no frequency at these levels of time
> > duration.
> >
> > So, what a frequency meter reads is, once electromagnetic radiation is
> > picked up by any kind of antenna, and converted to electric signals, is
> > just accumulation of an enormous amount of discrete events, which
> > present themselves AS IF light behave as a continuous wave.
> >
> > Valid for any range of photons, up to X rays. After that, I'm not sure,
> > in particular when GeV or TeV photons are analyzed.
> >
> > If the number of photons per second is lowered by millions of billions,
> > weird things will happen. Continuous waves will not be present,
> > depending on the wavelength.
> >
> > For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> > only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
> >
> > No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.
>
> And interference appears how?

By single photons interfering with themselves.
But please don't tell RH,
for it may blow his brain even more completely
than it already is,

Jan

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:19:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 8:31:16 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> > > given by the Planck's relationship:
> > >
> > > E = h.f ; E = h/T
> > >
> > > T = h/E
> > >
> > What gives you this bright idea, odious kapo?
> It's not difficult to visualize that,

Dumbestfuck,

Photons coming from the stars last trillions of trillions of cycles. You have gone off the deep end.

Den 23.03.2023 00:26, skrev Richard Hertz:

>
> 2) While turned ON, a myriad of photons flow. Each photon exists ONLY during ONE PERIOD OF TIME
> given by the Planck's relationship:
>
> E = h.f ; E = h/T
>
> T = h/E

One of your better! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
[-]
> For the example of 550nm, if the laser power is reduced 10E+18 times,
> only about 17 photons/sec will exist (if Planck's E = hf is right).
>
> No frequency will be measured, in the traditional understanding.

Of course it will be.
It doesn't matter whether or not your photons arrive one by one
at the detector in your spectrograph or in lots,

Jan

This is a recent paper (2020) with a lot of information to understand the behavior in the time and frequency domains
of very short (femtoseconds) laser pulses.

Femtosecond Laser Pulses: Generation, Measurement and Propagation
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/75127

You will read about the difficulties to develop correct mathematical theories for both domains, as these tools are almost
100 years old, and widely used in RF Engineering. In the last 20 years, the same analytical tools were brought to the optical
domain, more than 10,000 times above the frequency limits for microwaves.

The document is entirely based on the wave theory of Maxwell, but being that only the electric field is considered in lab measurements.

A Ti:sapphire laser is used, being tunable from 680 nm to 1130 nm..

In the Figure 11a, you can observe the electric field of an ultra-short lasers pulse (60 femtosec), which contains 7 oscillations of
the electric field, which correspond to an IR optical signal of 117 TeraHertz (2570 nm).

The train of 7 cycles is gaussian shaped, to obtain a compact spectrum, also having a gaussian shape. As it corresponds, according
to basic theories, multiplying a sinewave by a rectangular pulse generates a wide spectrum, instead of a single frequency.

To generate these results, the laser has to have a very high peak power. Otherwise, the femtosecond pulse would be impossible to
measure. Yet, a lot of complex techniques of correlations and other algorithms have to be employed.

What is created is analyzed as being a wavelet, which is a short burst of "sinusoidal" cycles.

Even when a technique be developed to isolate a SINGLE CYCLE wavelet, the number of photons involved is staggering high. This
means that the Planck's relationship E = hf is purely theoretical AND IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOF BY DIRECT MEANS.

In this article, the "expert" writes about the length of a photon:

Length of a Photon
https://www.rp-photonics.com/spotlight_2008_05_05.html

QUOTE:

"The latter approach can lead to questions such as the one concerning the length of a photon. If a photon were known to be something like a hard particle, or alternatively perhaps a wave packet, some kind of length could easily be defined. According to quantum theory, however, a photon is neither simply a particle nor simply a wave; instead, it has properties both of particles and waves, or more precisely speaking, the phenomenon of light exhibits both features of particles and waves.

In this situation, it doesn't even make much sense to ask about the length of a photon, at least without defining what exactly such a length should mean. If answers are given anyway, confusion is the natural consequence."

SOME COMMENTS AND ANSWERS BY THE AUTHOR
...................................
This answer is nonsense. If wavelength is used to define the photon as a wave, the question is legitimate. But if you don't know how to answer, it's better not to answer, Dr. Paschotta.

Answer from the author:

I definitely agree with the latter statement, but don't think that it applies to this particular case. Besides, I did not say that the question on the length of the photon is not legitimate. It is only that the question is not clearly stated, and in fact people are often not aware that it is not even clear how to define the length or spatial extent of a photon.

The author of that comment has unfortunately not explained his own view on the subject, so that we can neither make progress nor admire his or her greater wisdom.
...................................

Interferometry experiments can be done with single photons (see for example https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/ACDD3557-F93A-4AAF-9F0E68ED8051809E_336918/josk-19-6-555.pdf?da=1&id=336918&seq=0&mobile=no). In this experiment it appears that the coherence length is about what one would calculate classically.

A QFT calculation of an atom emitting a photon in a cavity has a length for the energy density (a finite region of non-zero energy). See http://www.eg..bucknell.edu/physics/ligare/ajp_visualization.pdf. It would be interesting to collect experimental results and put in one place to see what attributes a photon demonstrates.

Answer from the author:

Thank you for the comment!

********************************

CONCLUSION: Even when different measurements on experiments with ultrashort pulses of light exists for more than 20 years,
NOBODY wants to address the specific question of the length of a photon (duration).

Even when many are goofing around with a pair of entangled photons, and publish their experiments relentlessly, the actual state
of understanding about what is a photon is ZERO.

Maybe, Planck fucked it up with his quantum of action and QM people fucked it up even more by denying Maxwell in the quantum world.