That is a big particle. Perhaps we should keep in mind that the particles that find their way through slit experiments are not like billiard balls, but behave more like a wave packet. I still am wondering how to interpret the behavior of such a packet once it hits the "screen" following the slits. Does it spread out its effective impact region in proportion to the wavelength? In other terms, can it be detected over an area that is similar in size to a short antenna at that frequency? If this is the case, then its smaller brothers should behave in like manner.
I have always been suspicious of why a photon of light interacts with only one electron when the wavelength of the light is many times larger than the atom that contains that electron in orbit. Why is there little response from the nearby atoms that have resonances at the same frequency? One might be able to raise an argument concerning reciprocal behavior to explain why only one atom responds to the incoming photon. In this case, only a single photon is released by the change in orbital of a single electron. Why the enormous size question arises is beyond my understanding. A low frequency waveform such at the ones we are discussing can be polarized in any dimension right angled to the forward travel path and is not typically helical when man made. You can generally find a null direction to either the electric field or magnetic field of the traveling wave. Dave -----Original Message----- From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:39:29 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >OK Robin, > > >The frequency of a 1 kilometer wavelength radiated signal would be as follows: (f = c / wavelength). or in this case f = 300 million meters per second / 1000 meters or 300 kilohertz. This is a legitimate frequency that can be radiated with the proper antenna. So how big is the particle equivalent for this wavelength? It appears that the concept of particles at this frequency is non sense. A packet of waves that is contained within several wavelengths make much more sense. The radius of the "particle" is the wavelength / 2 Pi, i.e. 159 m. What I think you really have is a helical wave with a radius of 159 m. > > >Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com> >To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 11:38 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Particle size of photon > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:43:11 -0400 (EDT): >Hi, >[snip] > >Calculate the frequency. > >>A short exploration of the wave-particle behavior of photons was undertaken and >questions have come up that I would like answered. >> >> >>As we are all aware, an electromagnetic wave can be quite large in size. Since >there is no lower limit to the frequency of such a wave, it is easy to visualize >one that is greater than a kilometer between maximum electric or magnetic peaks. >A packet of waves that constitute a photon at a low frequency would likely >consist of many peaks. >> >> >>There is reason to assume that a low frequency photon would behave the same way >as its brother light photons and generate interference patterns when the size of >the experimental slits are in proportion to its wavelength. So, if the slits >are several kilometers apart, how large would the equivalent photon particle be? >The obvious answer is that it would be in the same size range as the >wavelength >of the packet. If this is true, then one might question the entire concept of a >photon as being any form of particle. After all, aren't most particles >virtually point sources as compared to normal dimensions? >> >> >>What is the currently accepted size of a photon that behaves as a particle? If >one of these passes through our very large slit experiment how would it be >detected at one location as with light photons? Could it be detected over a >large area of the impact region with say a dipole antenna? Has anyone given >this concept much thought? >> >> >>There are several other questions that can be entertained, but these should >bring on some interesting discussions. Please add your insight to this issue. >> >> >>Dave >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
