Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.
try thinking about a cathode ray tube as in a old style tv tube ...
Paul ... that's a trainwreck.
You are talking about an electron google cathode ray tube. Electrons have charge you can deflect them via the charge.
Light photons have no charge and no mass .. NEWSFLASH NOTHING DEFLECTS THEM.
In GR you can lense them around very strong gravity sources but you don't believe in GR so no issue here.
You can only classically DIFFRACT photons which your videos show and that requires a medium. Controlling the medium with a magnet or a electricity is not the same thing.
Now show me a video of light beam being deflected in a vacuum please .... as you say the have electric and magnetic fields so show me them being deflected like a CRT.
Quote:
ets see a link to the test you speak of... LOL laugh
As you have reached my stupidity limit in this discussion I am pretty well done here .. please don't direct questions back to me I am not interested in Paul physics it's in the same league as Marosz physics. I don't discuss pseudoscience junk please take this up with others. I don't need to practice my English that bad that I am willing to discuss lunatic rantings.
Last edited by Orac; 03/03/1605:15 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
yes because the laser pointer is inserted into the drill press as if it were a drill bit.
Quote:
2. Does the emerging beam rotate at 10,000rpm?
the entire beam would rotate
Quote:
3. Is this rotation imparted by the rotation of the emitting “element”?
the emitting element is rotating so any photons that it emits will also rotate.
Quote:
4. Is this rotation imparted by “friction” between the laser lens and the light?
the laser lens is rotating at the same rpm as the laser beam so the light passing through the lens would feel the same resistance to movement as it would if the laser were not rotating.
Quote:
5. Wouldn’t rotation of the beam impart helical movement to the photons, rather than causing each photon to spin, but maintain a straight course?
yes the photons would have a helical rotation but all of the emitted photons would be spinning in unison and travel in a straight line , if the laser pointer only emitted a single photon then the single photon would spin at 10,000 rpm and there wouldnt be a formation of a helical shape of the resultant light beam but since the laser beam is much wider than the width of a single photon then yes the beam would be helical.
Quote:
6. If 5 is correct, would you see this as an example of photons travelling faster than “c”?
the photons at the outside edge of the beam would be traveling faster than the photons at the center of the rotating beam because they are further from the center of the beam , but they would not travel faster linearly than the photons at the center of the beam.
so even though the overall photon beam would be traveling at c if in a vacuum the photons at the edge of the beam would be traveling slightly faster than c due to the combination of linear and angular movement of the photons but not much faster.
unless the photons have decided to adhere to the Einstein speed limit.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
I guess the choice between faster than c, and time dilation is an easy one for you.
yep
Quote:
I sometimes wonder if I should regret leaving (most) certainties behind many years ago. Life was simpler then, but not as interesting.
I'm sure you remember all the talk about allowing science to be more interesting to attract more students into the sciences ... they did , it happened , and now they are stuck with it because of the money that the interesting science makes for those who make the money from it...
I'm sure they have people who understand how things will actually happen as a check to ensure the gullible hordes don't make any actual disasters occur as they are playing in the fantasy realm of modern science.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, Science is bad evil money grabbers ... post count 2 since discussing this continued repetition
We got the message of what you believed in every post before now.
You are adding nothing new to discussion and just repeating the same spam slogans.
If all you want to do is spam the same message then please make your own thread and spam away, the same situation is imposed on Marosz. You can say whatever you like just please don't pollute every thread and make it difficult for people to actually discuss details.
Last edited by Orac; 03/04/1604:43 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Say what ... can you give me an example of an electric or magnetic field deflecting light?
I showed you several videos where light is bent / deflected using both an electric field and a magnetic field.
in the below video you can SEE the light if you couldn't see the light then it would not be light now would it.
you can SEE the light bending / deflecting.
are you now going to say that the light SEEN in the video and SEEN bending / deflecting is not actually light?
if the light SEEN in the video is not light then please tell me why you can see it...
also
the brightness difference of the light showing through the electric coil in the other video I posted is not the result of light passing through a medium it is the result of light passing through a magnetic field that causes the change in brightness that is shown in the video.
also
the link that you posted about the ruby spin medium could not be used to show the effects or results of a spinning laser light like I have posted as the light in the experiment is a image that is projected onto a spinning ruby medium ... theres a big difference there.
it does however show that light can be bent inside a medium without using gravity or a electric field or a magnet.
before you post your garbage that you find in your fantasy trash cans you might at least try to see if anything that you ever post actually relates to the things that you are posting about.
your entire argument is void concerning the long winded pat on your back with your hand attempt to debunk my post on the spinning laser light but don't start crying yet there is a easy way to check it.
if your BS science is right about the speed of light having a set speed limit then the photons at the edge of the spinning laser beam will arrive at a target after the photons at the center of a spinning laser beam.
because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light not even light itself, right Einstein!
if your BS science is right the laser beam would form a cone shape !
with the tip of the cone being the photons in the center of the laser beam.
I'm going to say that the photons will all arrive at the same time.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
if your BS science is right about the speed of light having a set speed limit then the photons at the edge of the spinning laser beam will arrive at a target after the photons at the center of a spinning laser beam.
Paul, that's only half of the "BS science". The spiralling photons would "experience" time dilation, so they should arrive at the same time as the central photons.
Paul, that's only half of the "BS science". The spiralling photons would "experience" time dilation, so they should arrive at the same time as the central photons.
LOL
I didn't think of that because I don't believe that time can dilate , but that shouldn't be a real problem as the time dilation couldn't possibly cause the photons to arrive at the same time if different laser rotation speeds and if needed wider laser beams are used ...
this way if they try to claim that time dilation causes the photons to arrive at the same time then through the use of varying laser rotation speeds and laser width a conclusion that the photons are experiencing time dilation could not be found to be valid unless they prop up the claim with even more false math that would reflect the variations in speed and laser width.
I would love to see the experiment myself.
but modern science wouldn't carry out an experiment that would lessen the popularity of the magic show.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul you call me dense the title of your video is deflection of a electron beam.
You like Marosz fail even the basics, an electron is not a photon, and your whole post requires no discussion.
Now we are done here fool I don't do Marosz like stupidity discussions. Please talk to someone else about it if you really are so intellectually challenged you don't get what is happening, I am treating this as a religious crackpot trolling because it is beyond stupid.
Now on my English lesson whats a less insulting way of saying "beyond stupid" that is when something is so stupid it can only be a troll, deliberate misinformation or a blatant lie.
Last edited by Orac; 03/05/1603:48 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Paul you call me dense the title of your video is deflection of a electron beam.
it doesn't matter what the title of the video was.
its clear that the light or photons are being bent to the same angle as the electron beam.
looking at the beam on a macroscopic scale the individual electrons that are emitted from the electron gun are extremely far apart and on our scale they are apx as far away from each other as a grain of sand in the center of a football stadium is away from a grain of sand sitting on the top row of the stadium.
if the photons are not being bent by the electric field then they would not follow the same path as the electrons now would they.
your probability trash couldn't even solve for why the photons are capable of exciting any other electron after it is emitted from a electron much less how it could accomplish the needed chain of excitation and emission all the way to the end of the electron beam , so unless you can show how the photons are following the curve of the electrons then the only way that the photons could possibly be curving WITH the electrons is if they are being directed along the same curve by the field.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul you are either, as Bill S says unconscionably naļve, or just plain ignorant and uneducated. The design of the experiment is deliberate, the fact you unlike most children (the target audience of the experiment) don't understand it is not my concern. As I have stated the title of the video is accurate and will leave it at that and I have nothing to add.
You like Marosz are free to believe whatever you like and I really don't care and why should I. When you have something not so unconscionably naļve I may choose to comment. I do the same thing to Marosz ignoring his ridiculous posts and children drawings which aren't worthy of commenting, although often I get a laugh at as I did with yours. Your or any other laymans opinion has no bearing on anything, and has no significance except to you. You always come across to me as if I should care what you believe and it is important, which I assume is your religious background where converting unbelievers is important.
For now you are on the ignore list like Marosz. You, at least when you are not doing anti-science rants, can construct a reasonable sentence so I will simply wait for the subject to return to something more intelligent that justifies a comment.
Last edited by Orac; 03/06/1606:55 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
from what I read you asked a question about how to word something in a nicer way and Bill S told you how to do it he wasn't saying that (I) was unconscionably naļve just to set the record straight.
I would still like to have your reply as to why you can see the electron beam in the video I posted.
1) the electron stream being emitted from an electron gun passes through a focusing tube that directs the electrons through a narrow orifice at the end of the electron gun.
2) the only light that could possibly exit the end of the electron gun is the light that is generated from the heating of the cathode way in the back of the electron gun.
3) any light that might exit the end of the electron gun would follow a straight line not a curved path and certainly not the same path as the electron beam unless the light is also being bent by the electric fields.
4) in the video you can see the light that is traveling in a straight line as the electron beam is moved. the light generated from the heat of the cathode continues in a straight line while the LIGHT of the electron beam is being curved away with the electron beam.
5) electrons are invisible ! so when you see the LIGHT of a electron beam you are not seeing the electrons you are seeing photons of light.
just because your brain doesn't want to accept things for what they are due to the washing it has undergone does not change the fact that those things are actually occurring in reality.
is it true that you don't have the ability to answer the questions because your degree of physics knowledge is really very very low.
you never do want to answer any valid questions concerning your BS science and that is one of the main reasons that I fully believe that your BS science is truly BS science.
your constant religious rants have no meaning coming from you or anyone else on this science forum so why don't you attempt to be slightly scientific and stick to the discussion and try and avoid the non scientific jargon that you seem to know more about than science according to the answers that you never give when asked.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
A thought (possibly naļve). In the video we are viewing the demonstration from about 90 degrees to the propagation direction of the beam. Unless there is a fairly dense atmosphere in the chamber, why is the beam visible?
the tube in the above electron gun has a vacuum pressure of apx 1 x 10^-7 torr so theres really no atmosphere as 1 torr is .0013 atm
light propagates in all directions so no matter what angle you view the tube from you would see the light beam generated by the heat of the cathode and the light beam of the emitted electron stream.
your probably thinking that because light propagates in all directions the light photons from the cathode are exciting the electrons in the electron stream and then re-emitting them and the light photons strike the next electron further down in the stream without direction of any sort so the propagation of light along the electron stream is due only to the electrons being there and the light propagating in all directions.
if that were the case then knowing that the atoms that form the argon gas molecules also have electrons should mean that the light that is seen would not follow any path at all because the crt tube is filled with electrons even before the beam is started.
the only light that that we can see with our eyes is the photons of visible light and the video filmed the light photons of visible light.
you need to think about a focused light beam and why does light from a laser beam travel in a straight line and is not vectored away from that straight line by the electrons in the air that we breath !!!
why does a laser beam travel in a straight line.
a focused electron beam is similar to a focused laser beam.
and then ask yourself how could the electron beam be emitting visible light photons that are directed in the same path as the electron stream in the same manner as the beam of a laser.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, you clearly like Marosz have a untreated mental condition that precludes you understanding written statements.
Lets try again Paul I am not remotely interested in this discussion, why direct questions at me. The fact you can't work it out is not my problem, and I don't care to set the record straight because you have gone to religious crackpot land. This is like the dinosaurs on the ark just to silly for me to discuss.
Besides it is more fun watching you make a fool of yourself
Last edited by Orac; 03/07/1602:31 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Unless there is a fairly dense atmosphere in the chamber, why is the beam visible?
Seriously Bill S you don't get it?
The beam is visible BY DESIGN you place a gas in that reacts with the energy range of the electrons. The light will spread randomly in all directions from the collision that absorbs the electron. So you lose one electron and gain a photon emission from that point. It's very straight forward.
When I do it for kiddies I use a single electron source with a detector at the electron exit point that emits a sound and a photo multiplier to detect the flash. You either get the sound (the electron got thru with no collision) or you get a flash (collision happened). You never get both and most kiddies instantly get it.
The fact you can see the beam is basically an inefficiency of electrons being absorbed before striking the screen for display which is the purpose of a CRT.
Anyhow that about all I have to say on the matter and I don't intend to debate it because this is like kiddie level physics. This is not something I can take seriously and it smacks of Marosz like discussions completely pointless and very stupid.
Originally Posted By: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray
Cathode rays are invisible, but their presence was first detected in early vacuum tubes when they struck the glass wall of the tube, exciting the atoms of the glass and causing them to emit light, a glow called fluorescence
If you can see the beam it's by design because thats what we wanted to do by using a specific gas ... now do you really want to continue to discuss stupidity? I was getting a really good laugh, it should have taken anyone around 10 sec search to find the beam is normally invisible, except for with the Science a GoGo forum and some of it's whacky inhabitants.
Trainwrecks are can be interesting to watch
Last edited by Orac; 03/07/1606:27 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
The beam is visible BY DESIGN you place a gas in that reacts with the energy range of the electrons
In other words; the photons are not emitted from the electron source, they result from reaction between electrons and gas. so they must curve with the electron beam.