[esquire]

this image is of an attempt to weight a proton

No it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber

The bubble chamber is similar to a cloud chamber, both in application and in basic principle. It is normally made by filling a large cylinder with a liquid heated to just below its boiling point. As particles enter the chamber, a piston suddenly decreases its pressure, and the liquid enters into a superheated, metastable phase. Charged particles create an ionization track, around which the liquid vaporizes, forming microscopic bubbles. Bubble density around a track is proportional to a particle's energy loss.

energy loss is a derivative function of the weight of the mass. is it not?

scientist remain stumped for an explanation.

No, they are not.


https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/10/electron

although the following article provided by yor on, involves a electrons instead of protons, the experiment is similar and revolves around the measurement of electrons via their wave bubble displacement. displacement, a process for the measurement of weight. energy loss in both cases of protons and electrons being measured by their bubble wave displacement. 

as per the articles summary under "new experiments".
“We think this offers the best explanation for what we see in the experiments,” Maris said. We’ve got this body of data that goes back 40 years. The experiments are not wrong; they’ve been done by multiple people. We have a tradition called Occam’s razor, where we try to come up with the simplest explanation. This, so far as we can tell, is it.”

“No one is sure what actually constitutes a measurement. Perhaps physicists can agree that someone with a Ph.D. wearing a white coat sitting in the lab of a famous university can make measurements. But what about somebody who really isn’t sure what they are doing? Is consciousness required? We don’t really know.”

each photon carries with it separate waves of intensity from gamma to am. each of these separate waves are subject to reflective elongation which in turn determines the strength of the intensity present in its 9 separate spectrum waves of energy, momentum, non-mass. also, the fact that its waves can be absorbed via different elements, presents another conundrum of being able to accurately measure the energy weight of a photon. so, there is an elongation issue that alters the wave's value. there is an absorption factor that alters it's value strength. there is also the speed of light momentum issue. that via the uncertainty principle can only provides an approximation of a single variable, which renders any determination scientifically invalid.

Was that a quote from the script for Star Trek?

Unless you can dispute any of the facts cited above, please cite any alternate set of facts that you may use for your lack of ideas. I see many of your contentions have already been discounted. I truly hope such your pretentious is not contagious. lol

[Bored chemist]

energy loss is a derivative function of the weight of the mass. is it not?

Not really, no.
When people talk about the mass of a proton, they mean the rest mass.
And that's independent of energy.

Unless you can dispute any of the facts cited above,

No.
You made it up.
It is your job to prove that it is true.
It isn't anyone else's job to show it is false.

Over to you...

[esquire]

energy loss is a derivative function of the weight of the mass. is it not?

Not really, no.
When people talk about the mass of a proton, they mean the rest mass.
And that's independent of energy.

The mass of a proton is 1.67 x 10-27kg, the mass is addressed as a weight at rest. the particle charge is independent of energy and that is measured. however when the proton wave collapses into multiple bubbles, in random pattern sizes the measuring of the proton energy becomes problematic. the weighted bubble sizes can offer no clear method for determining the energy loss, hence an accurate approximation of the energy for a proton is indeterminate. the difficulty in determining the energy of the proton pales in comparison to that of a photon, which was my point. 

 

Unless you can dispute any of the facts cited above,

No.
You made it up.
It is your job to prove that it is true.
It isn't anyone else's job to show it is false.

Over to you...

still you didn't dispute any of the facts listed as to why the energy cannot be determined. did you? lol

[esquire]

energy loss is a derivative function of the weight of the mass. is it not?

Not really, no.
When people talk about the mass of a proton, they mean the rest mass.
And that's independent of energy.

The mass of a proton is 1.67 x 10-27kg, the mass is addressed as a weight at rest. the particle charge is independent of energy and that is measured. however when the proton wave collapses into multiple bubbles, in random pattern sizes the measuring of the proton energy becomes problematic. the weighted bubble sizes can offer no clear method for determining the energy loss, hence an accurate approximation of the energy for a proton is indeterminate. the difficulty in determining the energy of the proton pales in comparison to that of a photon, which was my point. 

 

Unless you can dispute any of the facts cited above,

No.
You made it up.
It is your job to prove that it is true.
It isn't anyone else's job to show it is false.

Over to you...

still you didn't dispute any of the facts listed as to why the energy of a photon cannot be determined. did you? you know why, because you can't.  lol

each photon carries with it separate waves of intensity from gamma to am. each of these separate waves are subject to reflective elongation which in turn determines the strength of the intensity present in its 9 separate spectrum waves of energy, momentum, non-mass. also, the fact that its waves can be absorbed via different elements, presents another conundrum of being able to accurately measure the energy weight of a photon. so, there is an elongation issue that alters the wave's value. there is an absorption factor that alters it's value strength. there is also the speed of light momentum issue. that via the uncertainty principle can only provides an approximation of a single variable, which renders any determination scientifically invalid.

[alancalverd]

Having spent many happy hours measuring the energy of photons by various means over many years, I find it surprising to be told that it can't be done.

But then anyone who thinks "waves of intensity" belongs in a scientific discussion has clearly been reading too many Mills & Boone bodice-rippers and not enough elementary physics texts.

[esquire]

Having spent many happy hours measuring the energy of photons by various means over many years, I find it surprising to be told that it can't be done.

But then anyone who thinks "waves of intensity" belongs in a scientific discussion has clearly been reading too many Mills & Boone bodice-rippers and not enough elementary physics texts.

purist - 1.
a person who insists on absolute adherence to traditional rules or structures, especially in language or style.

[esquire]

Having spent many happy hours measuring the energy of photons by various means over many years, I find it surprising to be told that it can't be done.

But then anyone who thinks "waves of intensity" belongs in a scientific discussion has clearly been reading too many Mills & Boone bodice-rippers and not enough elementary physics texts.

no doubt that some peoples purist attitudes are rather selective! ex:

It's a bit like colour. Some things, like the river thames,  are brown.
You can say that the Thames flows, but you can't say that brown flows.

no disassociation here, over flowery language, is there? that makes your comments questionable.

[esquire]

Having spent many happy hours measuring the energy of photons by various means over many years, I find it surprising to be told that it can't be done.

But then anyone who thinks "waves of intensity" belongs in a scientific discussion has clearly been reading too many Mills & Boone bodice-rippers and not enough elementary physics texts.

no doubt that some peoples purist attitudes are rather selective! ex:

It's a bit like colour. Some things, like the river thames,  are brown.
You can say that the Thames flows, but you can't say that brown flows.

no disassociation here, over flowery language, is there? that makes your comments questionable.

alan , please explain your selective approach at commentary.

[esquire]

Having spent many happy hours measuring the energy of photons by various means over many years, I find it surprising to be told that it can't be done.

and your measurements, do you feel that they will never be challenged in the future by better methods. if you cannot say that with 100% certainty, then I question whether the methods you employed or the results of those methods are valid. .   

[esquire]

and alan please don't arbitrarily ban me without offering me a chance to respond to your reply.

[esquire]

Since all photons in monochromatic light have the same energy (by definition of "monochromatic") then any measurement of the wavelength of that light (including x-ray photons) is a measure of the energy of a single photon.

https:   //www.quora.com/What-is-monochromatic-light
Monochromatic means "same color". Basically monochromatic is any light which is purely of a single color. In modern terms it is a light of same wavelength.

so, a photon measured in energy in a Gamma spectrum does not have the same energy as a photon measured in a AM frequency.  yet a photon is a photon. it's malleability is wave intensity as I asserted.   

[chiralSPO]

purist - 1.
a person who insists on absolute adherence to traditional rules or structures, especially in language or style.

Science requires the use of terminology with rigorous and specific definitions. In colloquial English, "forceful," "energetic," "intense," and "powerful" all can be used somewhat interchangeably. In science, each has a different and very specific meaning.

PS: esquire, please don't spam the threads with multiple posts. Also, most of your assertions are very wrong...

[Bored chemist]

still you didn't dispute any of the facts listed as to why the energy of a photon cannot be determined. did you? you know why, because you can't.  lol

It's true that I can't dispute facts.
However, you didn't post any.

[alancalverd]

so, a photon measured in energy in a Gamma spectrum does not have the same energy as a photon measured in a AM frequency.  yet a photon is a photon. it's malleability is wave intensity as I asserted.   

A pigmy shrew does not have the same mass as a whale. So what? A mammal is a mammal.

If "wave intensity" means anything, it might just refer to the root mean square of its amplitude, which isn't at all relevant to the energy of a photon.

It is important, in any discussion, to use a common language. The language of physics is very precise.  Merely assembling sciency words into what looks like a sentence with a question mark, won't improve your understanding: if you don't understand the question, you certainly won't understand the answer.

In response to the meaningful question, I have no doubt that there are ever more accurate measurements of everything that has ever been measured. That is why we are moving to redefinitions of all primary standards in terms of universal constants rather than lumps of metal, but it doesn't alter the fact that the energy of a photon is measurable in priniciple and adequately measurable in practice.

Those of a philosophical bent may indeed ask "what do you mean by measure?" but the straight answer is always "compare x with y where y is an agreed standard".

[jeffreyH]

@esquire Garbage in garbage out. You dump garbage in the forum, we can always bin it for you. You have been given various correct answers which you simply won't accept. The moderators here are all volunteers. They have better things to do than put your toys back in the pram. Please try harder to be a valued member. You never know you may learn enough to help others.

[Bored chemist]

and your measurements, do you feel that they will never be challenged in the future by better methods. if you cannot say that with 100% certainty, then I question whether the methods you employed or the results of those methods are valid. . 

Your point seems absurd.
A thousand years ago you would be lucky to find a clock that told the time reliably to the nearest hour.
By the 1920s we had clocks that kept time to about a second per year.
Today we have clocks that measure the time to tiny fractions of a second.

But, by your "logic", because we now measure time better, we were not previously measuring it at all.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It seems to me that to measure the energy of a photon you have to be moving at the speed of light. According to relativity, a photon will perceive the universe as a mass of stationary bosons oscillating around fixed points according to their composite electromagnetic waves (interesting! we may live in two same-space interacting universes, one inhabited by bosons and one by fermions). So, somehow or other send a photon to measure another photon.

[chiralSPO]

It seems to me that to measure the energy of a photon you have to be moving at the speed of light.

This is a pretty unrealistic requirement. This thread is *full* of ways to measure the energy of a photon, and none of them has any requirement for velocity!

Actually, when moving at such speeds, measurements will tell you more about the angle of your trajectory with respect to the trajectory of the photon of interest, than anything intrinsic to the photon (and will be essentially worthless to anyone in a different frame of reference...)

[mxplxxx (OP)]

This thread is *full* of ways to measure the energy of a photon

Not true, unfortunately. Our chances of being able to measure the energy of a PARTICULAR photon seem to be  vanishingly slim. And even then, mostly it is the frequency that is measured, not the energy.

[chiralSPO]

mxplxxx, I would try to debate, but I see now that it is not worth my time, so I will leave you with this:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

I do hope that you will eventually open your mind to the possibility of experimentally determining facts, but I can not and will not force you to try to understand. Good day.