0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You can do it with a conventional light source and a monochromator and collimator , but it's horribly inefficient.But, in principle, you can do it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/08/2022 01:17:32You can do it with a conventional light source and a monochromator and collimator , but it's horribly inefficient.But, in principle, you can do it.Yet no one has come up with experimental results to determine if your principle is correct.
Every experiment where someone first did it with candle light or sunlight and which has subsequently been repeated using artificial light is a demonstration that your bizarre idea is wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/08/2022 12:18:02Every experiment where someone first did it with candle light or sunlight and which has subsequently been repeated using artificial light is a demonstration that your bizarre idea is wrong.Why can't I find any link to the report?
Because you are the only person who thinks it is plausible to write a report on every single instance of an observation of Youngs slits (for example) done using a tungsten lamp or an LED )or anything other than the daylight which Young used).How would you go about writing a report on an experiment done in every high-school physics class?
Every time someone uses some other sort of light source, and gets the same result, they prove that a photon doesn't "remember" what source it came from.
How did you imagine that they might?Did you think photons carried notebooks?
This is what I mean when I say you need to learn some science; it avoids you saying silly things like that.
Philosophy of Science - ReplicationThis video examines some of the challenges involved in determining whether or not an experimental result has been replicated.-- Collins, Harry. (1985). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage.-- Norton, John. (2015). "Replicability of experiment." Theoria 30(2): 229-248. https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/pape...-- Popper, Karl. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row.-- Ramscar, Michael. "The unspeakable in pursuit of the unrepeatable." https://ramscar.wordpress.com/2015/08...0:00 - Introduction2:49 - Two types of replication8:19 - Seven steps to replication10:13 - 1 What is the subject matter?13:37 - 2 What is science?14:59 - 3 Identity of the experimenter18:03 - 4 What is an experiment?24:54 - 5 Is the experiment a competent copy?32:29 - 6 Is the result positive?40:29 - 7 Replication
Most of the time, shining light on an object would increase its temperature instead of decreasing it.
If something is important enough or interesting enough, someone somewhere will write something about it.
I learn science
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/08/2022 05:06:21Most of the time, shining light on an object would increase its temperature instead of decreasing it.Nobody has ever suggested anything else, have they.So that was s silly thing to say, wasn't it?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/08/2022 05:19:15I learn science No you do not.That's why we have to keep repeating stuff, and explaining it to you repeatedly.
If facts sound silly to you, maybe there's something wrong with you.
Repeating false things doesn't make them any truer.
In principle, what you actually get is an infinitely negative temperature.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/08/2022 09:17:53In principle, what you actually get is an infinitely negative temperature.Doesn't this sound silly to you?
It seems like you are trying so hard to look like you know more things than you actually do.
It happens, for perfectly good reasons, that the dimensions of torque and energy are the same, but we treat them as different quantities, and only measure torque.