To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: How To Calculate Pressure Of Single Photon?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Homework Help
Pages: 1, 2

DavidD
so? I ssuspect, that single photon pressure must be h/c^2 or h*f/c^2. And measurment units must be like momentum p=m*v. Newtons?
excaza
Um...pressure is Force per unit area. Pressure has absolutely nothing to do with momentum, did you think that because they both have a p? The units of momentum are not Newtons, they are kg*m/s
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 05:28 PM)

Newton is kg*m/s^2.
So what is unit's of pressure? Anyway it's don't interesting to me what is units and bl bla bla. I want to know what is presure of single photon into say metal or into mirror. I know only that pressure into black matter is twice smaller than into mirror, becouse mirror reflecting and thus pressure is twice bigger...
so probably aceleration is measured in newons like 0.5*m*v^2, but this is job nad should be measured in joules. But say, that there flying proton with speed 1m/s and bouncing into mirror or metal and his momentum is given to object and thus there must be some pressure of proton and I want to compare this pressure with pressure of photon of any frenquency!!! So how to claculate proton pressure of not reletivistic speed and how to calculate photon pressure of any frenquency into say some matter which absorbing photon and proton. And by the way, is there is diferent in presure if pron is absorbed and if reflected?
excaza
Units should be interesting to you, if you could keep them straight you wouldn't look like such an idiot. Take a physics class.

edit: and an english class
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 05:54 PM)
Units should be interesting to you, if you could keep them straight you wouldn't look like such an idiot.  Take a physics class.


In physics class there no any information about single photon pressure, but only about pressure of Sun light, you think it's helping me? Yes, helps, but very not much. Only can say, that this rpessure is very small like possible can be hf/c^2. mad.gif

edit: here in textbook writen what sun light pressure is 4/10^8 N/m^2. Even 1mg have bigger presusre (~10 mN).
Enthalpy
A single photon has a momentum (not a pressure) of E/c.

Many photons per seconds, best measured by a power per surface unit Q, have an incoming pressure of Q/c. Double that pressure for a mirror, sum vectors if the mirror is tilted.

For Solar light at our distance from the Sun, 1350W/m2 push 4,5µPa.
DavidD
I will ask in over words: how much kinetic energy have one photon of any frenquency? Say proton kinetic energy is E=0.5*m*v^2, thus I think photon kinetic energy must be E/c^2=h*f/c^2. Am I right? Or such formula don't exist? But it would be little bit strange, becouse is possible to do such experiment by radiating say diferent wavelenght light on wire two plates, one mirror and one black. What is your answer?
dwk
A photon's energy is (by definition)

E = h f

(f is frequency in Hz, h is planck's constant)
Obviously you can't do (1/2)mv^2 since that equation only applies to particles with mass (i.e. fermions). Photons are not fermions. They are pure energy without mass.

Oh, and momentum has units of Newton-seconds (N.s). Pressure has units of Newtons/m^2
just to clarify.
DavidD
But if photon have pressure, thus it must have kinetic energy!
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 3 2008, 02:20 PM)
But if photon have pressure, thus it must have kinetic energy!

No, it has no mass.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 3 2008, 11:44 PM)
No, it has no mass.

Yes, becouse it have pressure. how somthing, which have pressure like proton can't have kinetic energy and mass. For example waves in sea don't have mass, but have kinetic energy and pressure.
prometheus
With every post DavidD plumbs the depths of stupidity and just when you think there's nothing more idiotic that can be said...

Of course water waves have mass. If they were massless they would travel at the speed of light! laugh.gif

Photons have kinetic energy because they have momentum. The photons KE is given by E = pc as you might expect. Remember that here p is not mc since the photon is massless, but it is p = h/λ so E = hc/λ

To talk about the pressure of a single photon is an exercise in futility because pressure is a statistical property of many particles. Single particles don't have a pressure any more than they have a temperature or entropy.
dwk
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 4 2008, 05:20 AM)
But if photon have pressure, thus it must have kinetic energy!

Sure, it has kinetic energy of E=hf, which is exactly what I said.
DavidD
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 4 2008, 10:10 AM)
Photons have kinetic energy because they have momentum. The photons KE is given by E = pc as you might expect. Remember that here p is not mc since the photon is massless, but it is p = h/λ so E = hc/λ


So you claiming that photon kinetic energy is E_k=p*c= h*c/λ=h*f/c ? But my claims is that photon energy is h*f/c^2, but maybe your are right, becouse photon moving at speed c...
DavidD
QUOTE (dwk+Jul 4 2008, 11:29 AM)
Sure, it has kinetic energy of E=hf, which is exactly what I said.

I think you are wrong. If kinetic energy would be h*f of photon then photon would be able much more to push matter, than now...
dwk
QUOTE
I think you are wrong. If kinetic energy would be h*f of photon then photon would be able much more to push matter, than now...


h = Planck's constant = 6.626068*10^-34 m^2 kg / s



You sure about that?
prometheus
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 4 2008, 02:14 PM)
So you claiming that photon kinetic energy is E_k=p*c= h*c/λ=h*f/c ?

Can you not get the simplest things?!

E = pc
= hc/λ
=hf

Not over c
DavidD
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 4 2008, 04:07 PM)
Can you not get the simplest things?!

E = pc
= hc/λ
=hf

Not over c

if h*f is kinetic energy, then why pressure of light producing (or more precisly almost don't producing) much less energy than sun bateries?
Thus I think that kinetic energy of single photon is E_k=h*f/c^2 and total energy of photon is E=E_0+E_k=h*f.
dwk
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 5 2008, 02:20 AM)
if h*f is kinetic energy, then why pressure of light producing (or more precisly almost don't producing) much less energy than sun bateries [photovoltaics?]?

DaviDd,

I was going to point out a rather obvious contradiction in your argument, but right now I'm just speechless. unsure.gif
DavidD
Kinetic energy is E_k=hf/c^2 and rest energy is E_0=hf and full energy is E=E_0+E_k=h*f+h*f/c^2. This is my theory.
prometheus
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 4 2008, 05:56 PM)
Kinetic energy is E_k=hf/c^2 and rest energy is E_0=hf and full energy is E=E_0+E_k=h*f+h*f/c^2. This is my theory.

Your theory is completely and utterly wrong. Firstly a photon has no mass, hence, no rest energy. Secondly hf/c^2 doesn't have the dimensions of energy, so it can't be an energy. Thirdly, every experiment ever performed on the energy of electromagnetic waves contradicts you. Nice job.
buttershug
DavidD to learn to speak you need to learn words.
To learn to calculate things such as you want to, you MUST learn units and their meaning.
It's not a mix and match sale.
dwk
QUOTE (dwk+Jul 5 2008, 02:48 AM)
DaviDd,

I was going to point out a rather obvious contradiction in your argument, but right now I'm just speechless. unsure.gif

lemme get this straight...

you say that photons can't have a lot of energy because they're ineffective at pushing matter

but then you say that photons must have a lot of energy because they power solar panels effectively

but then you say that E=hf is way too much energy for a photon, so you divide it by c^2 to make it smaller

but then you say that E=hf is only one component of the total energy of a photon.

PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS JUST A BAD DREAM!!!
DavidD
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 4 2008, 07:30 PM)
Your theory is completely and utterly wrong. Firstly a photon has no mass, hence, no rest energy. Secondly hf/c^2 doesn't have the dimensions of energy, so it can't be an energy. Thirdly, every experiment ever performed on the energy of electromagnetic waves contradicts you. Nice job.

I don't sure how to understand this, but only like rest mass... Think in this way, photon have vibration in two dimension like wave, this wave has energy and can hit in up and down and in straigt. Thus this hiting up and down is rest energy of photon E_0=h*f and this hiting in flying direction is kinetic energy of photon E_k=h*f/c^2. What is unclear?
dwk
Well DavidD, you do seem to think you know what you're talking about. If you want the scientific community to take you seriously though, you really should consider taking this to scientific publication.

PRL is a good place to start:
http://prl.aps.org/

ph34r.gif
DavidD
It's very strange that no such experiments to measure single photon pressure and thus - kinetic energy. Supose if you know how much arives photons in m^2 from Sun light and how much there is of them of diferent frenquency, then there is possible to calculate pressure of single photon and thus kinetic energy. Why such calculations wasn't made, probably becouse photons theory is incomplete like I now saying, that photons isn't particles, but only waves and that radiated energy of single atom can't be detected, becouse wave spreading and actualy there is many waves of many atoms sum one photon detection, but this one photon misleadingly interpetaed as photon colpase of single atom radiated wave.
DavidD
I think, that h/c^2 may be single smallest sphere kinetic energy cool.gif wink.gif
excaza
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the craziest of them all?

Ok "nobel laureate" DavidD, explain the Pioneer Anomaly with your theory. rolleyes.gif
prometheus
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 5 2008, 02:25 PM)
I think, that h/c^2 may be single smallest sphere kinetic energy cool.gif wink.gif

h/c^2 is not an energy. It has units of J s^3/m^2. You are a 'tard.
excaza
With smallest spheres theory you don't need to make equations dimensionally consistent. With smallest spheres theory velocity is same as temperature!
DavidD
QUOTE (prometheus+Jul 5 2008, 02:42 PM)
h/c^2 is not an energy. It has units of J s^3/m^2. You are a 'tard.

Ye, ye, just a though. Possible that imposible to calculate energy of single sphere kinetic energy, becouse we don't kow of how much spheres consist single proton or electron adn even photon and I am not sure if wave will be shorter than sphere radius, does wave will be able to trave or not. but this seems more like traveling then of single sphere than wave, but becouse of vibration of over sphere it can travel like wave and even possible, that each sphere is actualy represent wave.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 5 2008, 02:48 PM)
With smallest spheres theory you don't need to make equations dimensionally consistent. With smallest spheres theory velocity is same as temperature!

You smart as black hole.
excaza
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 5 2008, 09:40 AM)
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the craziest of them all?

Ok "nobel laureate" DavidD, explain the Pioneer Anomaly with your theory.  rolleyes.gif

Waiting.

QUOTE
You smart as black hole.

Says the retard who thinks that 'potential difference' is a difference in mass. laugh.gif
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 5 2008, 05:59 PM)
Waiting.


Says the retard who thinks that 'potential difference' is a difference in mass. laugh.gif

About what you talking?
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 5 2008, 01:09 PM)
About what you talking?

Don't be dense Kind of hard to believe that someone who thinks they should get a nobel prize can't even answer basic physics questions correctly

Mr. "nobel laureate," explain the pioneer anomaly with your theory.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 5 2008, 07:55 PM)
Don't be dense  Kind of hard to believe that someone who thinks they should get a nobel prize can't even answer basic physics questions correctly


I don't waisting time on stupid games.
QUOTE
Mr. "nobel laureate," explain the pioneer anomaly with your theory.

What is pioneer anomaly?
Gallimaufry
QUOTE

QUOTE (->
QUOTE


Mr. "nobel laureate," explain the pioneer anomaly with your theory.


What is pioneer anomaly?


OK, i am very sorry that i have to use my first post this way but ...

DavidD, it took me a mere few seconds to open a new tab in my web browser and type "pioneer anomaly" into a google search. I was immediately inundated with sites showing a plethora of information on this phenomenon.
If you too had taken the time maybe you could have answered the question instead of asking what it is (which by the way is just another nail in your already well sealed coffin)
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 12:36 AM)
I don't waisting time on stupid games.

Like, knowing what you're talking about? I agree with you there laugh.gif

QUOTE
What is pioneer anomaly?

There's more threads about it on this site, wikipedia, and the internet in general, than there are little spheres in your whacked universe theory. Look it up, you enjoy wikipedia enough to copy it as your own, this shouldn't be any different. rolleyes.gif
DavidD
QUOTE (Gallimaufry+Jul 6 2008, 11:24 AM)

What is pioneer anomaly?
[/QUOTE]

OK, i am very sorry that i have to use my first post this way but ...

DavidD, it took me a mere few seconds to open a new tab in my web browser and type "pioneer anomaly" into a google search. I was immediately inundated with sites showing a plethora of information on this phenomenon.
If you too had taken the time maybe you could have answered the question instead of asking what it is (which by the way is just another nail in your already well sealed coffin)

Why I should wore about questions, which may be "what is witch?"?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 6 2008, 02:13 PM)
There's more threads about it on this site, wikipedia, and the internet in general, than there are little spheres in your whacked universe theory. Look it up, you enjoy wikipedia enough to copy it as your own, this shouldn't be any different. rolleyes.gif

Why I should care about stupid some mumbo jumbo anomalies, which don't know more than my spheres theory?
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 10:06 AM)
Why I should care about stupid some mumbo jumbo anomalies, which don't know more than my spheres theory?

Why should we care about your stupid theory, when you're obviously a grade A retard who can't even keep equations dimensionally consistent or understand basic physics?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 6 2008, 04:45 PM)
Why should we care about your stupid theory, when you're obviously a grade A retard who can't even keep equations dimensionally consistent or understand basic physics?

Becouse I don't waisting my time to understand 99.9999999999999999999999% bullshit! Basic physic I understand prety enough.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 12:09 PM)
Basic physic I understand prety enough.

No you don't, potential difference has nothing to do with mass

No you don't, your units are wrong, you do not have energy there

No you don't, your units are wrong, you do not have energy there

No you don't, your units are wrong, you do not have energy there

Look, units AGAIN

And again

Dimensional consistency and dimensional analysis are taught the FIRST DAY of elementary physics classes. You obviously failed. And those are only from about 3 threads.

I also find it amusing you say this, and then refuse to provide experimental evidence for anything YOU make up.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 6 2008, 06:18 PM)

Dimensional consistency and dimensional analysis are taught the FIRST DAY of elementary physics classes. You obviously failed. And those are only from about 3 threads.

3 dimensions nothing have to do with pseudo 10D of strings...
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 01:24 PM)
3 dimensions nothing have to do with pseudo 10D of strings...

You are an absolute fuc*ing retard. Length, time, mass, volume, etc. are dimensions. Dimensional analysis means you make sure the dimensions in your equation match those of your result. That's how you know if your basic equation is correct. Something you fail to do. Something taught in BASIC PHYSICS, which you claim to know quite well, but have yet to show.

This example here, you claim that 'h/c^2' is the kinetic energy. That equation does not have the units of energy, therefore cannot BE an equation for energy. Is your stupidity dawning on you yet? wacko.gif
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 6 2008, 06:29 PM)
You are an absolute fuc*ing retard. Length, time, mass, volume, etc. are dimensions. Dimensional analysis means you make sure the dimensions in your equation match those of your result. That's how you know if your basic equation is correct. Something you fail to do. Something taught in BASIC PHYSICS, which you claim to know quite well, but have yet to show.


Mass is not dimension, but stupidation...
QUOTE
This example here, you claim that 'h/c^2' is the kinetic energy.  That equation does not have the units of energy, therefore cannot BE an equation for energy.  Is your stupidity dawning on you yet?  wacko.gif

My formula at least can represent real value of thing becouse actualy speed of light is infinity in my theory. Shorter waves have more energy, becouse more short waves fit into the same lenght.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 01:40 PM)
Mass is not dimension, but stupidation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

QUOTE
The dimensions of a physical quantity are associated with combinations of mass, length, time, electric charge, and temperature, represented by symbols M, L, T, Q, and Θ (respectively) each raised to rational powers.


Fuc*ing retard

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The dimensions of a physical quantity are associated with combinations of mass, length, time, electric charge, and temperature, represented by symbols M, L, T, Q, and Θ (respectively) each raised to rational powers.


Fuc*ing retard

My formula at least can represent real value of thing becouse actualy speed of light is infinity in my theory. Shorter waves have more energy, becouse more short waves fit into the same lenght.

NO IT CANNOT! YOU DO NOT HAVE AN EQUATION THAT GIVES AN ENERGY. YOU HAVE SOME BULLSH*T THEORY THAT EXPLAINS NOTHING AND HAS ZERO PROOF.
DavidD
You know, combining mass with 3D space is ridiculus. Don't mix brain with chicken...
QUOTE
NO IT CANNOT! YOU DO NOT HAVE AN EQUATION THAT GIVES AN ENERGY. YOU HAVE SOME BULLSH*T THEORY THAT EXPLAINS NOTHING AND HAS ZERO PROOF.

Energy need proportional to relativistic mass. It's imposible to say how much waves or energy need to excide detector, becouse detector is not etalon and it counting diferent waves amplitudes and frenquencies. So if in supernonrelativistic speed need energy E_c, then in relativistic speed need E_c/(1-(v/c))^0.5, where c is not speed of light, but some constant wich due to hystorical reasons means speed of light in current understnading, but in my theory it's just some constant.
Of course you may say, why big explosion of galxies don't reaching with infinity speed detectors? But maybe exactly this is? Or maybe simply energy can be transfered only with waves after waves and need to wait very long untill it will induced be...!? thus in my theory energy don't comes from nothere and if there is anihilation, then there slowly produced many infinity fast waves series, like sinusoi or somthing, which traveling with infinity speed and untill all this sinusoide will not go through electrons and thus excide them, this electrons will not make photoefect. Thus anihilation can go with finity speed thus waves will be also with finity speed (give up rolleyes.gif ). But key point in my theory is that there no photons and waves rolleyes.gif I don't know now. Maybe my theory realy is a fake?
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 6 2008, 02:13 PM)
You know, combining mass with 3D space is ridiculus. Don't mix brain with chicken...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
I just looked at my physics text. Guess which page this starts on? Page 5, where pages 1-4 are explaining what the SI system is.

QUOTE
So if in supernonrelativistic speed need energy E_c, then in relativistic speed need E_c/(1-(v/c))^0.5,

That is not an equation, you're not equating it to anything. At least you have something that gives energy. Even if it's itself...

MY THEORY IS CORRECT! E_c=E_c
EUREKA! rolleyes.gif

And again, This example here, you claim that 'h/c^2' is the kinetic energy. That equation does not have the units of energy, therefore cannot BE an equation for energy. Is your stupidity dawning on you yet? wacko.gif
DavidD
If you are smarter than I then please measure single photon pressuer and shut up!

Back to my theory. Okey, say, you win, mass and ligh can't travel with infinity speed. But in some one places time going slower than in over, becouse some places moving faster than over. What is my connection? From faster time going point radiated photons will must be seen very strongly for those who are in slower time position. But this don't hapening, becouse for exciding slower placed eyes say need more "photons" - waves. Becouse electrons are heavier and is harder to made photoefect. This all explains entanglement, what actualy more photons are radiated and they flying into one direction and into another and exciding both detectors if they going through polarizers... Part of waves reflecting from one polarizer with diferent amplitude and going faster to next polarizer untill measurment wasn't doen because of stoped slow time... That's all! Entanglement explained!
Now supose you saying, but it is possible for from faster point will radiate stronger waves amplitude resonated and from slower point it will be measured faster, but it's actualy isliusion and wrong, still will be measured slower, becouse all processes are heavier and going on slower and thus everything still will be measured slower. Just imagine what from fast point sended movie consist 25 frames per second (FPS) and you getting in slower "stoped" time 3 frames which are blured instead 1 frame then again 3 frames and it's waisted 6 frames normal and per 5 times you will get per each time 3 blured frames. So if time going on slowly then you will see slide show of blured slides (in one slide mixed 5 frames). But this mixed frames have still useful information and if they are radiated from the same stoped place then you will get pure one slide, which is mixed of 5 frames, but where 5 frames is the same or almost the same. This is principle of entanglement process, there going 5 photons and they are detected as 1 wave, but this 5 photons already doen they work by traveling through all possible chanels in "entangled" scheme... Thus there is like faster than light scheme, but this scheme naturaly comes from relativity raven than stupid many universes or bohemans or any back in time stupidnes...
DavidD
In textbook says, that photon mass is E/c^2=h*f/c^2 and photon impulse is E/c=h*f/c. But what is photon kinetic energy due to it pressure is unknown huh.gif

Also find, that photon giving his impulse to electrons and thus loosing energy and becoming of shorter wave (I wondering how quantized atom absorbing such waves). Thus it's explains why photons making photoefect and can "take" electrons from atom. I think photon impulse h*f/c possible is photon kinetic energy. Thus gamma photons can push protons like biliard balls.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
In textbook says, that photon mass is E/c^2=h*f/c^2 and photon impulse is E/c=h*f/c. But what is photon kinetic energy due to it pressure is unknown huh.gif

Also find, that photon giving his impulse to electrons and thus loosing energy and becoming of shorter wave (I wondering how quantized atom absorbing such waves). Thus it's explains why photons making photoefect and can "take" electrons from atom. I think photon impulse h*f/c possible is photon kinetic energy. Thus gamma photons can push protons like biliard balls.

Your textbook does not say that. E/c^2=h*f/c^2 and E/c=h*f/c both reduce to E=h*f, which is not mass nor is it impulse.

Do you even know what pressure is?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 7 2008, 08:48 PM)
Your textbook does not say that. E/c^2=h*f/c^2 and E/c=h*f/c both reduce to E=h*f, which is not mass nor is it impulse.


My textbook says, that h*f/c is photon impulse and since photon don't have mass and can't slowdown it speed then photon don't have kinetic energy. But on the oer hand photon kinetic energy possible to measure how long it interacting with particle in which he loosing his energy, so if particle lengh is 1/10^15, then need calculate how much time photon giving his impulse to particle. But there unclear somthing and I think theoreticaly it is not very possible to somthing calculate...
QUOTE
Do you even know what pressure is?

Don't know and very interesting, why nobody don't know single photon pressure!
buttershug
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 07:27 AM)

Don't know and very interesting, why nobody don't know single photon pressure!

It's more interesting that no one knows how sharp a unicorn's horn is.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 02:27 AM)
My textbook says, that h*f/c is photon impulse

You're not even reading a textbook, are you? Every time you post you lead off with "my textbook says" and then change it the next post cause someone points out to you that you're full of sh*t.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 11:51 AM)
You're not even reading a textbook, are you? Every time you post you lead off with "my textbook says" and then change it the next post cause someone points out to you that you're full of sh*t.

Textbook can't be wrong.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 08:12 AM)
Textbook can't be wrong.

Given that you obviously can't read, I'd start with your brain before starting with the textbook.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 01:12 PM)
Given that you obviously can't read, I'd start with your brain before starting with the textbook.

My brains become brains of genius. laugh.gif biggrin.gif tongue.gif
buttershug
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 01:17 PM)
My brains become brains of genius. laugh.gif biggrin.gif tongue.gif

A genius is eating your brains?
That explains why you have so little left.
excaza
What genius would eat DavidD's brain?
DavidD
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 8 2008, 01:39 PM)
A genius is eating your brains?
That explains why you have so little left.

No, but somebody will eate my theory sooner or latter, of course if it is right ohmy.gif
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 10:31 AM)
No, but somebody will eate my theory sooner or latter, of course if it is right ohmy.gif

Which, it isn't.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 04:54 PM)
Which, it isn't.

prove it, but seems, there is many cracks, who think they know very much, huh?
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 12:52 PM)
prove it

You first.
buttershug
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 06:09 PM)
You first.

A single photon doesn't have pressure.
excaza
I don't think DavidD knows what pressure is.
DavidD
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 8 2008, 06:11 PM)
A single photon doesn't have pressure.

Yes, becouse don't exist such thing like photon... And because you probably want to say, that those waves are absorbed, and each photon have pressure with kinetic energy E=h*f ? And only very small amount is absorbed? No... somthing wrong. Pressure must be and is according to textbook (of course single photon pressure can't be measured). Now there somthing very strange and even to my theory there is hard to explain... If waves always giving they kinetic energy to electrons, then in photoefect presure must be bigger than in over passing through experiment, but seems even in absorbtion experiments (wich are eqaul(?) to photefect) or in absorbtion there is only thermal energy given and not kinetic, becouse even reflected light have bigger presure than absorbed. So what is pressure of photon? Possible that most logical explanation of waves pressure remains my explanation, that phoefect energy and absorbtion is energy of vibration of waves and pressure is energy of flying direction center of wave. But still there need some formula to measure this energy of say photon... E_k=h*f/c^2, why not?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 06:14 PM)
I don't think DavidD knows what pressure is.

I don't think you know what kinetic energy is.
QUOTE
You first.

I missing some information about what polarization reflecting polarizer or maybe at all without polarization. You obviously and over crancks don't know such information.
excaza
So you're admitting you don't know what pressure is?
buttershug
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 8 2008, 06:52 PM)
Yes, becouse don't exist such thing like photon... And because you probably want to say, that those waves are absorbed, and each photon have pressure with kinetic energy E=h*f ? And only very small amount is absorbed?

I hope I never say anything as selfcontradictory as that.

Why don't you switch to wine tasteing? Or fine art?

I think you would do much better with those than with physics.
DavidD
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 8 2008, 07:09 PM)
I hope I never say anything as selfcontradictory as that.

Why don't you switch to wine tasteing? Or fine art?

I think you would do much better with those than with physics.

You don't have answer, thus rambling bullshit.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 8 2008, 06:57 PM)
So you're admitting you don't know what pressure is?

I know what is pressure, and what doing it, but for to do it need energy, which can't be E=h*f. Thus need some different formula, which nobody know. Possible that E_k=h. But I am don't know, becouse there no in textbook about, which photons have bigger pressure shorter or longer or the same.
DavidD
Ok, how possible that this makes sense E_k=h*f/c (J*s/s/m*s)=h*f/c (J*s/m). Thus Joules*second/meter is formule of energy given by photon per second and photon flying through one meter. Ha? For example if photon flying through particles of long of one metter if they put closly together, then flying such meter in remirored directions (or many meters) one second then photon will give one joule of energy. cool.gif rolleyes.gif Nice, isn't? Wehn photon is absorbed or reflected, then if absorbed it giving energy depending on wavelenght, bigger wave lenght, more "presure" energy. So possible that true formula is E_k=h/c (J*s*s/m), but no and any physics don't measure it blink.gif
excaza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

If you don't get Joules, it's not an equation for energy you fuc*ing idiot, why is this so difficult for you to understand?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 11:06 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

If you don't get Joules, it's not an equation for energy you fuc*ing idiot, why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I already explain E_k=hf/c, but sciencists won't to check my assumption, becouse they don't know does particles are waves or not
Put your wikipedia into as it moderating such cracks as you! If you don't get Joules, it's not an equation for energy you fuc*ing idiot, why is this so difficult for you to understand?
I already explain E_k=hf/c, but sciencists won't to check my assumption, becouse they don't know does particles are waves or not laugh.gif
excaza
If you don't get Joules from your equation, it's not an equation for energy. It's really that simple.

QUOTE

I already explain E_k=hf/c, but sciencists won't to check my assumption, becouse they don't know does particles are waves or not

They won't check it because THE EQUATION DOES NOT GIVE YOU AN ENERGY

J*s/m is NOT ENERGY, it's momentum. Learn physics.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 11:31 AM)
If you don't get Joules from your equation, it's not an equation for energy. It's really that simple.


They won't check it because THE EQUATION DOES NOT GIVE YOU AN ENERGY

J*s/m is NOT ENERGY, it's momentum. Learn physics.

When why them just check of single photon pressure per second? N/s ?
excaza
Pressure is not Newtons. Learn physics.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 12:10 PM)
Pressure is not Newtons. Learn physics.

Learn physics you, pressure in my textbook is newtons if you put 10 kg on table then pressure will be 98 N.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 07:18 AM)
Learn physics you, pressure in my textbook is newtons if you put 10 kg on table then pressure will be 98 N.

Either you have no textbook, your textbook was written by people with similar mental capacity to you, or you can't read properly.

No, the normal force will be 98 newtons. Pressure is not measured in newtons. Thank you for illustrating that you have no idea what pressure is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 12:29 PM)
Either you have no textbook, your textbook was written by people with similar mental capacity to you, or you can't read properly.

No, the normal force will be 98 newtons. Pressure is not measured in newtons. Thank you for illustrating that you have no idea what pressure is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

you rambling bullshit, because textbook can't be wrong, but wikipedia can.
excaza
Learn how to read your textbook. Newtons are not the units of pressure.

Thank you for continuing to illustrate that you have no idea what pressure is.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 02:15 PM)
Learn how to read your textbook.  Newtons are not the units of pressure.

Thank you for continuing to illustrate that you have no idea what pressure is.

There with black on wwhite writed that light pressure is 4*10^{-8} N/m^2.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 10:27 AM)
There with black on wwhite writed that light pressure is 4*10^{-8} N/m^2.

That's not what you said you fuc*ing idiot. You said pressure is measured in Newtons. It's not. It's measured in Newtons per meter squared, or Pascals.

Learn physics.

Someone who can't even keep track of units and make sure their equations are dimensionally consistent cannot even pass a physics course, much less win a nobel prize.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 04:05 PM)
That's not what you said you fuc*ing idiot. You said pressure is measured in Newtons. It's not. It's measured in Newtons per meter squared, or Pascals.

Learn physics.

Someone who can't even keep track of units and make sure their equations are dimensionally consistent cannot even pass a physics course, much less win a nobel prize.

I making physic, instead rambling units.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 01:00 PM)
I making physic, instead rambling units.

You're making equations that aren't true. That's not making physics, that's making retardation. Something you seem to be adept at. You can "explain" it all you want, but if your equations are wrong, you're wrong.

So, you're wrong.

Learn physics.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 06:01 PM)
You're making equations that aren't true. That's not making physics, that's making retardation. Something you seem to be adept at. You can "explain" it all you want, but if your equations are wrong, you're wrong.

So, you're wrong.

Learn physics.

I now more concentrated on entanglement and relativity like all quantum mechanic explanation, rather than stupid pressure, which isn't experimentaly measured for single photon and then it's stupid to do here research.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 01:28 PM)
I now more concentrated on entanglement and relativity like all quantum mechanic explanation, rather than stupid pressure, which isn't experimentaly measured for single photon and then it's stupid to do here research.

huh.gif
You're doing research? Since when? All you've done so far is make up theories, refuse to provide any evidence or experimentation, and make up equations that aren't dimensionally consistent (that means WRONG). You don't know basic physics, you don't know quantum mechanics, yet you try to say they're wrong, and have deluded yourself into thinking you deserve a Nobel Prize.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 06:36 PM)
huh.gif
You're doing research? Since when? All you've done so far is make up theories, refuse to provide any evidence or experimentation, and make up equations that aren't dimensionally consistent (that means WRONG). You don't know basic physics, you don't know quantum mechanics, yet you try to say they're wrong, and have deluded yourself into thinking you deserve a Nobel Prize.

I think, that if my model explaining entanglement with polarization or interference reflection, then I deserve nobel prize, but if it explaining only with relativity, that with hidden local variables (which need create, becouse in my relativistic model they possible), then I deserve only somthing smaller...
The key point of my relativistic theory is that particles not waves or if they are waves then they colapsing with some very small time dialtion, becouse time is like stoped and speed c can to arive of particle half splited even from very large distance (of course if this distance is very very big then possible that particle will stuck and sometimes after very long time will colapse in this place, but model, that particle can go very far is not realistic) and thus particle little bit tolate, but it's can be compensated with faster electron nature or this is not the big deal.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 01:52 PM)
I think, that if my model explaining entanglement with polarization or interference reflection, then I deserve nobel prize, but if it explaining only with relativity, that with hidden local variables (which need create, becouse in my relativistic model they possible), then I deserve only somthing smaller...
The key point of my relativistic theory is that particles not waves or if they are waves then they colapsing with some very small time dialtion, becouse time is like stoped and speed c can to arive of particle half splited even from very large distance (of course if this distance is very very big then possible that particle will stuck and sometimes after very long time will colapse in this place, but model, that particle can go very far is not realistic) and thus particle little bit tolate, but it's can be compensated with faster electron nature or this is not the big deal.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the craziest of them all?

You should probably learn the physics and math you're dealing with before trying to use any of it to explain...anything. So far you've failed to apply your model to anything you've been asked to model. The logical conclusion is that you're full of sh*t.
buttershug
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 9 2008, 12:18 PM)
Learn physics you, pressure in my textbook is newtons if you put 10 kg on table then pressure will be 98 N.

Is your textbook in english?
If not I think you are mistranslating.
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 9 2008, 06:59 PM)
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the craziest of them all?

You should probably learn the physics and math you're dealing with before trying to use any of it to explain...anything. So far you've failed to apply your model to anything you've been asked to model. The logical conclusion is that you're full of sh*t.

My model created replace probabilitic-spooky action at distance mechanic and not to explain some your stupid questions...
DavidD
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 9 2008, 11:09 PM)
Is your textbook in english?
If not I think you are mistranslating.

If you feel better 98 N/m^2, now fell beter?
buttershug
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 10 2008, 07:03 AM)
If you feel better 98 N/m^2, now fell beter?

Do you understand that N is not the same as N/m^2?
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 10 2008, 02:03 AM)
If you feel better 98 N/m^2, now fell beter?

The cover of your textbook is one square meter?

QUOTE
My model created replace probabilitic-spooky action at distance mechanic and not to explain some your stupid questions...

Your model is useless. Current quantum mechanics can answer the questions you've been asked (with the exception of the Pioneer anomaly, but since you think your model is so much better, you should be able to explain it for us) your model can do jack sh*t.

You don't even know what pressure is or how to make dimensionally accurate equations (translation: That makes equations WRONG), yet you expect a nobel prize. laugh.gif
DavidD
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 10 2008, 10:46 AM)
Do you understand that N is not the same as N/m^2?

Do you understand, that photon already have size x m^2 ? depending on wavelenght or h..?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 10 2008, 11:10 AM)
Your model is useless. Current quantum mechanics can answer the questions you've been asked (with the exception of the Pioneer anomaly, but since you think your model is so much better, you should be able to explain it for us) your model can do jack sh*t.

My model explaining all mysteries of quantum mechanic! Quantum mechanic says, that there everything is unclear and mystical, and my model says, taht we flying with 0.999999999999999999c speed and thus all then can be explained. Thus then quantum mechanic is pease of frogshit, because there no any mysteries and so on. There no need any many universe or any stupid boheman interpretation if you don't believe in magic... String theory at all is talking with GOd.
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 10 2008, 06:22 AM)
My model explaining all mysteries of quantum mechanic!

Yet you're completely unable to model anything in this universe with it. Not a very good explanation.

The Pioneer Anomaly is a mystery, why can't your model explain it?
DavidD
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 10 2008, 11:24 AM)
Yet you're completely unable to model anything in this universe with it. Not a very good explanation.


Don't be so sure about it, maybe I will be able to model entanglement with it, but on this photum obviously no persons, who understand good entanglement.
QUOTE
The Pioneer Anomaly is a mystery, why can't your model explain it?

Becouse it is not mystery, but there is inprecision of data...
excaza
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 10 2008, 06:45 AM)
Becouse it is not mystery, but there is inprecision of data...

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Data, statistical, and calculation errors were already analyzed and ruled out by scientists investigating the anomaly. 7 different analyses have shown the effect.

Must be tough knowing the "theory" you spent so much time working on is completely useless. Have you learned the difference between a Newton and a Pascal yet?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.