Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Do Lasers defy the uncertainty principle

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 13 December 2020 - 05:13 AM

What is the commutating variable that will have gross uncertainty when the energy of a laser beam can be known with such precision?

 

Skeptical

Barry

 

 



#2 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,211
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 13 December 2020 - 06:08 AM

Martin Harwit gets into that in his book Cosmic Discovery, available on AbeBooks (abebooks.com) for a few dollars.

 

The paradox that confuses most people is étendue, which seems (superficially) to violate Emmy Noether's Theorem. A quasi-collimated beam emanates from a source whose genesis is an ideally-Lambertian gas... and one understandably asks how can that be. The resolution to understanding is that lateral spatial coherence and longitudinal (temporal) coherence interact/combine in phase-space to satisfy the uncertainty principle. I took that and invented compact street lights that broadcast intense directed beams from Low Pressure Sodium gas... seemingly impossible. So much so, that our customer demanded a prototype... which we provided. If you closely examine that light, it is densely covered with seemingly random ultra-thin high-finesse multiple-beam interference fringes. You don't notice that micro-morphology from a distance (the roadway task area) and could/would think that the Lagrange Invariant is somehow being violated... which it is not!    Tom   



#3 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 13 December 2020 - 08:27 AM

Martin Harwit gets into that in his book Cosmic Discovery, available on AbeBooks (abebooks.com) for a few dollars.

 

The paradox that confuses most people is étendue, which seems (superficially) to violate Emmy Noether's Theorem. A quasi-collimated beam emanates from a source whose genesis is an ideally-Lambertian gas... and one understandably asks how can that be. The resolution to understanding is that lateral spatial coherence and longitudinal (temporal) coherence interact/combine in phase-space to satisfy the uncertainty principle. I took that and invented compact street lights that broadcast intense directed beams from Low Pressure Sodium gas... seemingly impossible. So much so, that our customer demanded a prototype... which we provided. If you closely examine that light, it is densely covered with seemingly random ultra-thin high-finesse multiple-beam interference fringes. You don't notice that micro-morphology from a distance (the roadway task area) and could/would think that the Lagrange Invariant is somehow being violated... which it is not!    Tom   

 

I'm afraid the word soup you quote from, means nothing to me, You obviously understand it,  so could you please translate it for us  humble CN folk.      By the way my simple question remains unanswered. 

 

Cheers

Barry


  • Dynan likes this

#4 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,642
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 13 December 2020 - 03:18 PM

I'm afraid the word soup you quote from, means nothing to me, You obviously understand it,  so could you please translate it for us  humble CN folk.      By the way my simple question remains unanswered. 

 

Cheers

Barry

I must be way down the knowledge totem pole...

I understood Tom's answer better than I understood your question confused1.gif



#5 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,211
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 13 December 2020 - 03:44 PM

Here we go >>>. You can indeed choose any one metric and then immediately identify the other, because >>>

 

Conjugate pair products have the dimensionality units of mass x length2 / time. That makes the conjugate of Energy to be >>> frequency.    Tom



#6 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,642
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 13 December 2020 - 06:48 PM

Here we go >>>. You can indeed choose any one metric and then immediately identify the other, because >>>

 

Conjugate pair products have the dimensionality units of mass x length2 / time. That makes the conjugate of Energy to be >>> frequency.    Tom

As I think about this...

If we know the velocity (it can only go one speed in a vacuum) of a photon and we know the frequency to a high degree (like a photon generated in my microwave) are we not sneaking up on violating the uncertainty principle? Or am I leaving out position?

 

Edit:

I took my dogs for a walk and thought about what I wrote. Frequency is a part of velocity, along with wavelength if I am not mistaken, so what I wrote is incorrect. But what about position? 


Edited by Keith Rivich, 13 December 2020 - 07:39 PM.


#7 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,211
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 13 December 2020 - 10:38 PM

As I think about this...

If we know the velocity (it can only go one speed in a vacuum) of a photon and we know the frequency to a high degree (like a photon generated in my microwave) are we not sneaking up on violating the uncertainty principle? Or am I leaving out position?

 

Edit:

I took my dogs for a walk and thought about what I wrote. Frequency is a part of velocity, along with wavelength if I am not mistaken, so what I wrote is incorrect. But what about position? 

The details get arcane rather quickly. It's also a function of direction, with vector components tossed in etc. The conjugate of position is... of all things... momentum... in the same direction. There are of course an infinite variety of such pairs. I'm sure that is what Barry intends in his opening posit up there. Note that kinetic energy (a scalar) has an associated direction, which can then be resolved into components. All that mush is imbedded in the theory and reality of particles and our efforts to detect them. But it all comes out in the wash.

 

A nifty demo of the Uncertainty Principle in action can be  accomplished at no cost right at your (4-inch APO Refractor) telescope! Get on a very bright star at high magnification, so you can actually see the Airy Disc as a little intense dot with the characteristic ring around it. Grab a 4-inch iris diaphragm and put it over the front of the scope. As you vary the size of that aperture, the Airy Disc will grow and shrink in inverse proportion. The size pairs of the aperture and of the Airy Disc relate to the uncertainties in the lateral momentum and lateral position of the photons. It's straight forward to show that that product is in exact agreement with the uncertainty principle.

 

I couldn't help myself, so set that up at work, with a biggish collimator (artificial star) feeding the iris. The experiment is dramatic, especially with a white-light collimator... where one experiences the beautiful rainbows that actually make up the Airy Disc. Here's a picture of that set-up. I was able to sneak it into what I was doing, because my assigned task was to design and build sources for the collimator. I claimed that I was using the iris demo to confirm that what I built was performing to requirements --- which was indeed true... but still sorta an excuse to play with light. Thankfully, I was an Exalted Tech Fellow by then... so had cart blanche to screw around in the labs and get paid handsomely for doing it... provided I'd write up the experiments as white-papers. Ahhh... ain't science fun!  Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 44 80 Lab Dahl Collimator annotated Tom's Parfocal Sources.jpg
  • 46 Tiny Airy Disc 150.jpg

Edited by TOMDEY, 13 December 2020 - 10:48 PM.

  • Keith Rivich likes this

#8 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 387
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 14 December 2020 - 12:24 AM

A little hard to be sure I'm understanding the issue, but...

 

From Mr Townes himself:

 

https://www.slac.sta...30-2-townes.pdf

 

Towards the end of the 5th page is where he discusses HUP.

 

The objection to lasers was that each excited atom spends a very short time in the laser cavity, and so there ought to be a correspondingly low precision in the wavelength produced.

 

The problem is that this is too simplistic an application of the HUP.  In fact, there are a very large number of indistinguishable atoms involved, and you actually have very little knowledge of anything about any specific atom.  So it turns out the 'intuitive' restriction does not apply.

 

The error is essentially that you are applying a microscopic rule to a bulk phenomenom, as if it were a microscopic phenomenom.


  • Miguelo likes this

#9 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,211
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 14 December 2020 - 01:22 AM

Excellent point, Dave!

 

Even something as ~simple~ as examining an Airy Disc we are perceiving the statistical summation of trillions or more individual photon events. What we then see is the probability density distribution function painted out there, with the individual contributors not tagged as to when and where each arrived. Reminds me of the two-armed (e.g. Twyman Green) Interferometer, where we block one or the other arm, in an attempt to "force" the experiment to reveal which arm a photon takes. Problem is, the instant we block one, the distribution function changes is exact accordance with that conditional... aka... the fringes disappear. Which confirms that, with both arms open... each photon takes both paths!    Tom



#10 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 December 2020 - 02:43 AM

My take is that classical blundering and experimenting precedes QM?   The history of the transistor and laser being cases in point.   QM's then plunder the successful outcomes and, put their magic spin on it.  It took 20 years to finally accept the laser as Q device, this was achieved by the concept of "bunching and anti bunching" using Poisson statistics, photon arrival stats. and the "Hanbury Brown effect" 

 

 

“In 1954, shortly after Gordon and I built our second maser and showed that the frequency of its microwave radiation was indeed remarkably pure, I visited Denmark and saw Niels Bohr. As we were walking along the street together, he asked me what I was doing. I described the maser and its amazing performance. “But that is not possible!” he exclaimed. I assured him it was. Similarly, at a cocktail party in Princeton, New Jersey, the Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann asked what I was working on. I told him about the maser and the purity of its frequency. “That can’t be right!” he declared. But it was, I replied, telling him it had already been demonstrated. Such protests were not offhand opinions about obscure aspects of physics; they came from the marrow of these men’s bones. Their objections were founded on principle—the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. A central tenet of quantum mechanics, this principle is among the core achievements that occurred during ground, or lower, states. A wave of electromagnetic energy of the proper frequency traveling through such a peculiar substance will pick up rather than lose energy. The increase in the number of photons associated with this wave represents amplification— light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. If this amplification is not very large on a single pass of the wave through the material, there are ways to beef it up. For example, two parallel mirrors—between which the light is reflected back and forth, with excited molecules (or atoms) in the middle—can build up the wave. Getting the highly directional laser beam out of the device is just a matter of one mirror being made partially transparent, so that when the internally reflecting beam gets strong enough, a substantial amount of its power shoots right on through one end of the device. The way this manipulation of physical laws came about, with the many false starts and blind alleys on the way to its realization, is the subject of my book, How the Laser Happened. Briefly summarized in this article, it also describes my odyssey as a scientist and its unpredictable and perhaps natural path to the maser and laser. This story is interwoven with the way the field of quantum electronics grew, rapidly and strikingly, owing to a variety of important contributors, their cooperation and competitiveness. DURING THE LATE1940s and early 1950s, I was examining molecules with microwaves at Columbia University—doing microwave spectroscopy. I tried None of us who worked on the first lasers ever imagined how many uses there might eventually be. Many of today’s practical technologies have resulted from basic scientific research done years to decades before. BEAM LINE 25 a phenomenal burst of creativity in the first few decades of the twentieth century. As its name implies, it describes the impossibility of achieving absolute knowledge of all the aspects of a system’s condition. There is a price to be paid in attempting to measure or define one aspect of a specific particle to very great exactness. One must surrender knowledge of, or control over, some other feature. A corollary of this principle, on which the maser’s doubters stumbled, is that one cannot measure an object’s frequency (or energy) to great accuracy in an arbitrarily short time interval. Measurements made over a finite period of time automatically impose uncertainty on the observed frequency. To many physicists steeped in the uncertainty principle, the maser’s performance, at first blush, made no sense at all. Molecules race through its cavity, spending so little time there—about one ten-thousandth of a second—that it seemed impossible for the frequency of the output microwave radiation to be so narrowly defined. Yet that is exactly what happens in the maser.”

 

Still have no answer to my original question? but the replies are interesting.

 

Barry

 

 



#11 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 December 2020 - 08:40 AM

What is the commutating variable that will have gross uncertainty when the energy of a laser beam can be known with such precision?

 

Skeptical

Barry

By the way I think the answer is "position", but I'm prepared to take advice on that from a QM, EJN where are you when I need you?

 

My question is straight out of quantum theory, I wanted to test if anyone here at CN new the basics of QM,  considering the flack I get when I criticize QM.   I am surprised at some of the responses, the reason I asked this question is, the received wisdom is that the laser is a quantum device,   why? Niels Bohr claimed it could't possibly work because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP).    Who is rewriting history here?  Niels Bohr also claimed the experiment proposed by Hanbury Brown couldn't possibly work because of the HUP, after 20 years of pondering the Hanbury Brown Twiss effect is incorporated into QM theory as one of its highlights, and crucial to the understanding the operation of the laser.   More rewriting of history?

 

https://en.wikipedia...nd_Twiss_effect

 

Barry



#12 Dark Photon

Dark Photon

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2020
  • Loc: CT

Posted 15 December 2020 - 12:34 PM

What is the commutating variable that will have gross uncertainty when the energy of a laser beam can be known with such precision?

 

Skeptical

Barry

It is time. The reason why the energy (=frequency) can be known precisely because the beam in the laser bounces between the mirrors for a long time, satisfying the energy-time uncertainty relation: delta energy * delta time >= hbar/2. Lasers do not violate uncertainty.


  • Miguelo likes this

#13 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 15 December 2020 - 02:08 PM

It is time. The reason why the energy (=frequency) can be known precisely because the beam in the laser bounces between the mirrors for a long time, satisfying the energy-time uncertainty relation: delta energy * delta time >= hbar/2. Lasers do not violate uncertainty.

I stand corrected, it's your theory not mine, given you are correct does this apply to the metronome analogy and vacuum tube cavity oscillators, crystal oscillators, phase locked loop oscillators, Rubidium beam oscillators, piano strings etc.  The trouble I have with your response, is it is a bulk or ensemble effect generally reserved for the classical domain. the first sweep through the cavity frequency and phase locks several atoms that were close to the phase naturally, the time to lock would be pico seconds or less?  They will remain locked the whole time due sitting in an ever increasing standing wave, these first few atom are obviously exempt from the UP.   There is also the problem of single side band phase noise that us classic folk have trouble with.      You are simply restating aspects of Fourier theory, an infinitely narrow bandwidth takes infinite time.   My point is QM doesn't predict very well, it retro predicts. I would like to hear your thoughts on the history of the transistor and the role played by quantum theory, or the result of the 60 or  more EPR experiments and why they continue performing them?       One day you might realize the UP is simply noise and measurement uncertainty, as Heisenberg originally proposed, but Bohr insisted he wanted something more powerful and unscientific than that, the UP is a theistic cult type proposition that can be explained by classic means without the mystery and magic.  Real zero point radiation with the high frequency components being capped (not Lorenz invariant) being a major component.

 

Barry



#14 Dark Photon

Dark Photon

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2020
  • Loc: CT

Posted 15 December 2020 - 08:38 PM

Yes, absolutely, the time-energy uncertainty is a direct consequence of results in Fourier analysis, but that does not make it incorrect. It is a math theorem.

 

I cannot comment on the history of discoveries you mentioned as I know next to nothing about that. I am influenced by the fact that there is not a single experiment that disagrees with quantum mechanics. The uncertainty relations are consequences of the framework that makes accurate predictions for many amazingly precise measurements. It is difficult to imagine that the same framework that is successful somehow deceives us about uncertainty relations.

 

I don't want to get into interpretation of quantum mechanics. My personal view is that it is just words and nothing else. The words may fail us, but the math seems sound.


  • Miguelo and DaveC2042 like this

#15 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 16 December 2020 - 12:11 AM

My main problem with QM is that it denigrates and claims superiority over Maxwellian wave theory.   Classical wave theory predicts exactly the same results as QM in all the Bell tests of the EPR experiments, and yet it claims that all loopholes have been covered and classic theory fails.   There is one loophole that stands unchallenged by Bell tests, and that is the integrity of the photon.  All Bell tests to date apply to a sinusoidal result ( the law of Malus) and the classical model they claim to defeat is a billiard ball particle model, this is true, no particle model can produce the sinusoid of the law of Malus, but that includes the photon particle, faster than light influences are claimed for the QM's result.   The classical wave model produces the sinusoid perfectly.  Why? the photon is split at the polarizers used in the experiments.  there are two opposing conclusion that can be drawn from these results, the popular one at the moment (consensus) is faster than light influences produce the sinusoidal results for the QM photon model, or the wave model of Maxwell, in other words photons don't exist as the Nobel laureate Max Planck originally claimed.   My interpretation as a local realist, is, that the 60 or so EPR experiments. prove that the photon does not exist.   Young's two slit experiment using feeble light (one photon per second) proves that photons don't exist

 

 

 

My personal view is that it is just words and nothing else. The words may fail us, but the math seems sound.

Faith, in other words

 

My personal view is words and history do matter, and Maxwellian math is sound and never been found in error, and is compatible with gravity and relativity whereas QM is not.

 

Barry



#16 Dark Photon

Dark Photon

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2020
  • Loc: CT

Posted 16 December 2020 - 11:37 PM


Faith, in other words

Quite the contrary, not faith but scientific method. I care about experiments and if a theory (quantum mechanics) agrees with measurements. If the calculations match the experiments what else is there to say ? If they do not agree with some new experiments in the future then a revision will be needed, but so far so good. 

 

I definitely would not say that QM denigrates classical (Maxwell) theory. Maxwell theory is consistent with quantum mechanics in the classical limit. When the electromagnetic fields are small the quantized nature starts being relevant, but otherwise classical and quantum are exactly the same. A perfect analogy is Newtonian mechanics that is not less sound because of relativity. I bet my car was designed using Newton's laws and works just fine, yet those laws fail at speeds that my car never reaches.

 

Maxwell theory does not explain EPR correlations. It does not even explain the photoelectric effect. The black-body spectrum is just plain wrong without quantum mechanics. I could go on here. We have devices that register single photons, so I'm really puzzled why you would say photons do not exist. Atoms emit single photons. People build cavities and capture single photons and can actually register if there are no photons in the cavity, or if there is one, two, three, but never in between. How is this consistent with Maxwell's theory ?


  • Miguelo likes this

#17 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 17 December 2020 - 03:06 AM

Quite the contrary, not faith but scientific method. I care about experiments and if a theory (quantum mechanics) agrees with measurements. If the calculations match the experiments what else is there to say ? If they do not agree with some new experiments in the future then a revision will be needed, but so far so good. 

 

I definitely would not say that QM denigrates classical (Maxwell) theory. Maxwell theory is consistent with quantum mechanics in the classical limit. When the electromagnetic fields are small the quantized nature starts being relevant, but otherwise classical and quantum are exactly the same. A perfect analogy is Newtonian mechanics that is not less sound because of relativity. I bet my car was designed using Newton's laws and works just fine, yet those laws fail at speeds that my car never reaches.

 

Maxwell theory does not explain EPR correlations. It does not even explain the photoelectric effect. The black-body spectrum is just plain wrong without quantum mechanics. I could go on here. We have devices that register single photons, so I'm really puzzled why you would say photons do not exist. Atoms emit single photons. People build cavities and capture single photons and can actually register if there are no photons in the cavity, or if there is one, two, three, but never in between. How is this consistent with Maxwell's theory ?

Just for starters, photon detectors don't exclusively, and unambiguously  identify individual photons, due to noise.    Ensemble averages, with and without signal then subtract the average noise,   gives approximate counts.

 

 

 

 

Physics Today 25, 3, 48 (1972); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3070772
ABSTRACT
In the best of all possible worlds, we would have the ideal photon detector, a device that caught a photon, gave an unambiguous meter reading and kept count of the number of events. In the real world, these ideal devices do not exist; competing events both outside and inside the detector confuse the true measure of the photons that we are trying to monitor. Phenomena such as quantum noise, “dark” current and background radiation interfere to a degree that depends on the intensity of the signal being measured and on the photon frequency, to mention only a few of the experimental parameters.

I think I have some work ahead of me on this topic?

 

Barry



#18 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,843
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between eigenstates

Posted 17 December 2020 - 10:52 AM

I definitely would not say that QM denigrates classical (Maxwell) theory. Maxwell theory is consistent with quantum mechanics in the classical limit. When the electromagnetic fields are small the quantized nature starts being relevant, but otherwise classical and quantum are exactly the same. A perfect analogy is Newtonian mechanics that is not less sound because of relativity. I bet my car was designed using Newton's laws and works just fine, yet those laws fail at speeds that my car never reaches.

 
 
I said something very similar in another thread,
 

I have nothing against modern EM theory, it works fine in many applications just as Newtonian gravitation still is good enough for calculating orbital elements of solar system objects besides Mercury.

And bcgilbert replied "Wow what a put down." So I deleted it and have decided any further response on the subject is pointless and a waste of my time.
 
 
However, I will throw this one out to see where it sticks:
  

Young's two slit experiment using feeble light (one photon per second) proves that photons don't exist.

 
Have a look-see at this: Young's double-slit experiment with single photons and quantum eraser
 
https://sciencedemon...hoton_paper.pdf

 

Note: sometimes this link is slow in loading, you might have to try several times.


Edited by EJN, 17 December 2020 - 11:53 PM.

  • Miguelo likes this

#19 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 387
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 17 December 2020 - 09:56 PM

Quite the contrary, not faith but scientific method. I care about experiments and if a theory (quantum mechanics) agrees with measurements. If the calculations match the experiments what else is there to say ? If they do not agree with some new experiments in the future then a revision will be needed, but so far so good.

I definitely would not say that QM denigrates classical (Maxwell) theory. Maxwell theory is consistent with quantum mechanics in the classical limit. When the electromagnetic fields are small the quantized nature starts being relevant, but otherwise classical and quantum are exactly the same. A perfect analogy is Newtonian mechanics that is not less sound because of relativity. I bet my car was designed using Newton's laws and works just fine, yet those laws fail at speeds that my car never reaches.

Maxwell theory does not explain EPR correlations. It does not even explain the photoelectric effect. The black-body spectrum is just plain wrong without quantum mechanics. I could go on here. We have devices that register single photons, so I'm really puzzled why you would say photons do not exist. Atoms emit single photons. People build cavities and capture single photons and can actually register if there are no photons in the cavity, or if there is one, two, three, but never in between. How is this consistent with Maxwell's theory ?


As I observed in another thread, Maxwell's equations do not treat particles with rest mass. QM does.

The whole 'debate' is just plain silly, and I've certainly reached the conclusion that the aim is simply to wind people up.
  • freestar8n, brave_ulysses and Miguelo like this

#20 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 18 December 2020 - 12:26 AM

 
 
I said something very similar in another thread,
 

And bcgilbert replied "Wow what a put down." So I deleted it and have decided any further response on the subject is pointless and a waste of my time.
 
 
However, I will throw this one out:
  

 
Have a look-see at this: Young's double-slit experiment with single photons and quantum eraser
 
https://sciencedemon...hoton_paper.pdf

 

Note: sometimes this link is slow in loading, you might have to try several times.

 

 

Quote from Wiki............Wave theory of light
See also: Wave–particle duality
In Young's own judgment, of his many achievements the most important was to establish the wave theory of light.[32][33] To do so, he had to overcome the century-old view, expressed in the venerable Newton's Opticks, that light is a particle. Nevertheless, in the early 19th century Young put forth a number of theoretical reasons supporting the wave theory of light, and he developed two enduring demonstrations to support this viewpoint. With the ripple tank he demonstrated the idea of interference in the context of water waves. With Young's interference experiment, the predecessor of the double-slit experiment, he demonstrated interference in the context of light as a wave.

Plate from "Lectures" of 1802 (RI), pub. 1807
Young, speaking on 24 November 1803, to the Royal Society of London, began his now-classic description of the historic experiment:[34]

The experiments I am about to relate ... may be repeated with great ease, whenever the sun shines, and without any other apparatus than is at hand to every one.[35]

In his subsequent paper, titled Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics (1804), Young describes an experiment in which he placed a card measuring approximately 0.85 millimetres (0.033 in) in a beam of light from a single opening in a window and observed the fringes of colour in the shadow and to the sides of the card. He observed that placing another card in front or behind the narrow strip so as to prevent the light beam from striking one of its edges caused the fringes to disappear.[36] This supported the contention that light is composed of waves.[37]

How can the same experiment be interpreted so differently?  Young's experiment even demonstrates the "which way effect" as supporting the wave theory.  The experiment EJN quotes is simply a rehash of Young's experiment.   It is even performed using classical light rather than quantum (single photon) light.  Hard core QM's criticize us classical folk for using classical light, because  they believe that bunching of  photon's occurs therefore rendering the experiment inconclusive.  G. I. Taylor performed the experiment some years later using a candle (classical light), sewing needle, smoked glass and film, with exposure times as long as 3 months, and claimed it demonstrated the existence of "photon's".   It was a crude experiment (two pages), that is still considered one of the foundations of QM.  It is often quoted without being read by the authors, because it is so difficult to get a copy, I have a copy that was extremely expensive twenty years ago?

 

It appears to me, that the interpretation of a particular experiment, depends on the baggage and biases you bring to the table?

If being skeptical "winds people up" then so be it.  Feynman claimed he didn't understand QM, but subscribed to the school, "shut up and calculate", I'm one of those who wants to look behind the screen.  Niels Bohr said, particles have no properties, until you observe them, I simply can't accept that,  just as I can't accept theism or creationism.

 

Barry



#21 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 18 December 2020 - 01:29 AM

As I observed in another thread, Maxwell's equations do not treat particles with rest mass. QM does.

The whole 'debate' is just plain silly, and I've certainly reached the conclusion that the aim is simply to wind people up.

Particles with rest mass, say, an electron has a magnetic moment, this magnetic moment can radiate if the electron is accelerated,  the electron can also precess or tumble and possess angular momentum, thereby having simultaneously both particle and wave properties. Have you ever heard of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), routine analytical medical tool.    I have published a peer reviewed paper on electron radiation in an international journal twenty years ago, but I know you don't like reading my stuff.    My aim is to reinstate Maxwell and modern derivatives to a higher level and promote healthy skepticism in the quiet viewers, If I wind up bigots then that is a bonus.   Did you know that Max Planck did not believe in "photons", yet, QM's claim he is the father of QM and his Nobel prize for his discovery of Planck's constant supports QM, this is the rewriting of history

 

I'm wound up now, also puffed up and in a bit of a frenzy

 

Barry


Edited by bcgilbert, 18 December 2020 - 01:32 AM.


#22 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,843
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between eigenstates

Posted 18 December 2020 - 10:57 AM

I'm wound up now, also puffed up and in a bit of a frenzy

 

Then take a chill pill.

 

 

 

 

If I wind up bigots then that is a bonus.

 

Are general relativists "bigots" because GR superseded Newtonian gravity? When you phrase things like this, as if it is some kind of political test or holy war, it just turns people off from engaging with you.

 

At the rate you are going, pretty soon you will have this forum all to yourself - it will be renamed the bcgilbert alt-science echo chamber.


Edited by EJN, 19 December 2020 - 01:22 AM.

  • City Kid and Miguelo like this

#23 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 18 December 2020 - 12:34 PM

 

 

bigot
noun [ C ]   disapproving
UK  /ˈbɪɡ.ət/ US  /ˈbɪɡ.ət/

a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
a religious bigot
He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot.

 

You did not bother to engage with my answer to Dave's statement, 

 

Maxwell's equations do not treat particles with rest mass. QM does

I'm doing my best here and you are starting to thrash and cavitate because you have no comeback to my "wave particle duality model" you can critically evaluate the model, instead of attacking me personally.   QM's stand out from the rest of the science community as arrogant bullies and bigots I was hoping you weren't one of them.   Deep down in their soul they are scared that it may be flawed but after investing so much effort in believing the bizzare weird aspects of it , and the pride associated with the understanding.  They will defended it vigorously and simply refuse to accept other ideas.   If it includes absurdities and action at a distance faster than light, just turn a blind eye and hide in amongst  the majority like a coward.  Science by consensus is the current paradigm.  can you possibly imagine how difficult it is to be published in peer reviewed journals for us classical folk, armies of reviewers, rewrites, rejections not to mention rudeness and denigration.

Galileo was threatened with the rack unless he recanted and then his sentence was reduced to house arrest for life.

What would you sentence me to for my heresy in supporting modern EM theory.

 

Barry


Edited by bcgilbert, 18 December 2020 - 12:50 PM.


#24 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 18 December 2020 - 01:10 PM

It is time. The reason why the energy (=frequency) can be known precisely because the beam in the laser bounces between the mirrors for a long time, satisfying the energy-time uncertainty relation: delta energy * delta time >= hbar/2. Lasers do not violate uncertainty.

Getting back to physics, in the far field of a laser beam well away from the laser the photons positions are precisely known as well as their time they take to reach certain points or the time between points. Is there some time Iv'e missed here. My take is they are not in any way obeying the uncertainty principle.  Perhaps you can help me?

 

Barry



#25 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 18 December 2020 - 02:21 PM

 

I definitely would not say that QM denigrates classical (Maxwell) theory. Maxwell theory is consistent with quantum mechanics in the classical limit. When the electromagnetic fields are small the quantized nature starts being relevant, but otherwise classical and quantum are exactly the same. A perfect analogy is Newtonian mechanics that is not less sound because of relativity. I bet my car was designed using Newton's laws and works just fine, yet those laws fail at speeds that my car never reaches.

 

.

 

And bcgilbert replied "Wow what a put down." So I deleted it and have decided any further response on the subject is pointless and a waste of my time.

My problem with your statements is that I'm not aware that EM theory has any limits or fails anywhere or at any scale this is a myth put out by QM's.  electrons, neutrons, protons and quarks have coulomb charges and magnetic moments EM theory can accommodate all these things.  The founding fathers of physic chose to largely avoid the details of the atoms and study the bulk properties of matter, this was for practical reasons.  the impossibility of handling the math of the enormous no of variables.   Niels Bohr said particles have no properties until you observe them so leave them alone behind behind the screen.  Although some of his best work was when he dabbled with his orbitals.    It is probably possible today, to solve the problem of discrete orbitals, fine level shifts and splits  of the lighter elements, as a many body EM problem. with the myriad of EM solvers and simulators available today not to mention obscene computer power.  However there is no interest in such research because QM's claim the territory as their own. Some of us EM folk have attempted to quantitatively attack some of these problems including the strong and weak nuclear force, the Casimir effect, The AB effect, zero point radiation, the Stern Gerlach apparatus. electron interference. dust in the IGM etc.  There are other groups looking at these issues from a similar classical point of view. that go by the name of stochastic electrodynamics (SED) and also SED with spin (SEDS) I have associated with these groups from time to time but belong to a smaller group as yet unnamed, a possible name is SED without Lorentz invariance (SEDWLI).  I'm putting my cards on the table here, if it winds you up or you think I'm a troll then you have a problem.  Freedom of speech should allow me some space to put my views across.

 

Barry

 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics