[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Yet no one has come up with experimental results to determine if your principle is correct.

[alancalverd]

You did!

Like the man said, if you are trying to efficiently stimulate a quantum phenomenon, you need to use tightly specified photons. LED spectra are fairly narrow but difficult to modify, unlike a tuneable laser. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

Yet no one has come up with experimental results to determine if your principle is correct.

No.
Because every single experiment with light- all of them- every single one- has shown that you can change the light source and not affect the outcome as long as you maintain the polarisation, intensity and spectrum.

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Why can't I find any link to the report?

[Bored chemist]

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.

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?

Did you not understand that?

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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?

If something is important enough or interesting enough, someone somewhere will write something about it. I think it's an interesting phenomenon, if it's true though.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Most of the time, shining light on an object would increase its temperature instead of decreasing it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How did you imagine that they might?
Did you think photons carried notebooks?

How do you think that photon can go backward in time like in quantum eraser experiment? Or be in two places at once?
You can accept that weird things actually happened in an observed phenomenon, or modify the model you use to describe it by changing one or more assumptions to make it less weird.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This is what I mean when I say you need to learn some science; it avoids you saying silly things like that.

I learn science because it's necessary for achieving the universal terminal goal. Any other things are secondary bonus.

Philosophy of Science - Replication
This 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 - Introduction
2:49 - Two types of replication
8:19 - Seven steps to replication
10:13 - 1 What is the subject matter?
13:37 - 2 What is science?
14:59 - 3 Identity of the experimenter
18:03 - 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

[Bored chemist]

Most 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?

[Bored chemist]

If something is important enough or interesting enough, someone somewhere will write something about it.

So, you think " I'm a physics teacher; today in class I demonstrated that the double slit experiment worked- just the same as it has for the last hundred years" is important enough, or interesting enough to get written up?

Really?
You think that thousands of school repetitions of an experiment will get published?
Why would anyone bother?
What's "important enough or interesting enough" about it?

[Bored chemist]

I learn science

No you do not.
That's why we have to keep repeating stuff, and explaining it to you repeatedly.

[alancalverd]

As usual, philosophers try to tell other people that they don't understand what they are doing.

Obviously you can't precisely replicate an experiment.The stars have moved in the firmament and some of the original atoms have disintegrated. But that isn't the point. The questions scientists ask are "does the experiment support the hypothesis?" and "are the results sufficiently robust to invest money or entrust lives to their application?" So for the most part we are interested either in partial replication with known perturbations (test of robustness) , or reasonable approximations to the original experiment (trying to minimise random errors and systematic uncertainties).  And just occasionally we ask "has he made a serious mistake, is he lying, or have we really been getting it wrong for the last 20 years?" To which the answer, in my experience, is "sometimes", "rarely", and "surprisingly often". But you don't usually need precise replication to come to those conclusions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most 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?

If facts sound silly to you, maybe there's something wrong with you.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I learn science

No you do not.
That's why we have to keep repeating stuff, and explaining it to you repeatedly.

Repeating false things doesn't make them any truer.

[Bored chemist]

If facts sound silly to you, maybe there's something wrong with you.

There's such a thing as context.
If I ask for directions to the railway station, and you tell me that the capital of Peru is Lima, you sound silly, don't you?

Nobody had suggested anything  other than the idea that shining light on something normally makes it hotter, had they?

Repeating false things doesn't make them any truer.

Again, nobody had said otherwise, had they?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In principle, what you actually get is an infinitely negative temperature.

Doesn't this sound silly to you?

[alancalverd]

It certainly places limits on the value of defining temperature (which we can measure) in terms of entropy (which we can't).

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. 

[Bored chemist]

In principle, what you actually get is an infinitely negative temperature.

Doesn't this sound silly to you?

Well, that depends.
Are you answering a pointless question ,which the questioner has already said they can't think of a use for, or are you trying to achieve something?
If all I'm doing is answering a question from some guy on the internet who can't really give a good reason for his questions then, it's not that silly; there's some hope the guy might learn  from it.
If it's  matter of trying to make practical use of an infinitely negative electronic temperature then, yes, it's a bit daft.

Have you now realised why I was reluctant to waste time on the calculation?
In particular, have you now realise that this was wrong?

It seems like you are trying so hard to look like you know more things than you actually do.

It's not that I don't know the answer; it's that i know that the answer isn't going to be much use.

[Bored chemist]

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. 

I'm sure I heard some wacky story somewhere of some group trying to measure energy.
I think their problem was they failed to ask a chemist.