I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact.
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement.
For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
Good so far!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
Light isn't packaged in discrete photons of measurable energy?
Of course you can't say much about a thing that has never been
detected. It's just a rumor.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement.
Do people still say "duh" ?
For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
Most measurements, and the measuring instruments, are defined in
advance of the event. Calibrated even.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
On 09/06/2024 21:08, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
Link please? It is impossible to comment without seeing his talk.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
Good so far!
It was true when I was an undergraduate and it is still just as true
today that if you claim to fully understand quantum mechanics then you
don't fully understand quantum mechanics.
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
On 6/9/2024 5:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
The general public tends to be exceptionally mathematics-averse. Even
many people with advanced degrees in fields outside the hard sciences
tend to be pretty math-averse.
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
On 6/9/2024 5:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
The general public tends to be exceptionally mathematics-averse. Even
many people with advanced degrees in fields outside the hard sciences
tend to be pretty math-averse.
There's a modest subset of the population that's math-averse but is not averse to trying to learn something qualitative about quantum physics or
the Riemann Hypothesis or some other mathematical aspect of the hard
sciences and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling like they know
_something_ more than they went in, even if the details aren't within
their grasp.
In contrast to the rather large subset of the population, even people
with college degrees, who are OK with not knowing the first thing about
such topics, and tend to prefer it that way.
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as "vanishingly small".
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as
"vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
On 09/06/2024 21:08, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
Link please? It is impossible to comment without seeing his talk.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as
"vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman ><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light >>*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales... >Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes?
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams..
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?
The split-beam interferometer was designed specifically to mess with
our heads.
On 10/06/2024 01:00, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/2024 5:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
The general public tends to be exceptionally mathematics-averse. Even
many people with advanced degrees in fields outside the hard sciences
tend to be pretty math-averse.
Absolutely correct. I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as "vanishingly small".
I learnt to use the formulae for differentiation
and integration and passed my exams, but my eyes clouded over then as
far as abstract mathematical concepts are concerned, and they've never cleared! It's quite possible that I have to be able to imagine most
things to understand them, and, to me, mathematics is just not within my imagination.
There's a modest subset of the population that's math-averse but is not
averse to trying to learn something qualitative about quantum physics or
the Riemann Hypothesis or some other mathematical aspect of the hard
sciences and enjoy the satisfaction of feeling like they know
_something_ more than they went in, even if the details aren't within
their grasp.
I'm interested in almost anything scientific, even if I can't understand
it. Perhaps it's better that way - I don't have to see the wood for the trees!
In contrast to the rather large subset of the population, even people
with college degrees, who are OK with not knowing the first thing about
such topics, and tend to prefer it that way.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as
"vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:19 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as
"vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Interesting electronics is nonlinear.
I recall some college professor mumbling about solving nonlinear differential equations but it wasn't
encouraging.
Having some gut-level feeling for integration and differentiation and
diff equations and initial conditions and control theory is good, but
Spice can do the actual work.
I taught a course once on dynamic systems. The final assignment was to
write a Basic program to simulate refilling a toilet tank after a
flush. Surprisingly, everybody got it right.
On 6/9/2024 5:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
The general public tends to be exceptionally mathematics-averse. Even
many people with advanced degrees in fields outside the hard sciences
tend to be pretty math-averse.
On 10/06/2024 01:00, bitrex wrote:
On 6/9/2024 5:07 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
That's hardly usual, or a reason to call him wrong. He won the Nobel
Prize just to get free plane tickets.
I'm not quite sure what he has said that annoyed JB - usually any
popular science programme for a general audience dumbs down quantum
mechanics to a point where it is completely unrecognisable to
professional physicists.
The general public tends to be exceptionally mathematics-averse. Even
many people with advanced degrees in fields outside the hard sciences
tend to be pretty math-averse.
Absolutely correct. I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as "vanishingly small". I learnt to use the formulae for differentiation
and integration and passed my exams, but my eyes clouded over then as
far as abstract mathematical concepts are concerned, and they've never cleared! It's quite possible that I have to be able to imagine most
things to understand them, and, to me, mathematics is just not within my imagination.
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as
"vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman >> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales...
Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes?
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams..
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
On 6/10/24 01:56, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The split-beam interferometer was designed specifically to mess with
our heads.
Was it? I think it behaves exacly like you'd expect from
a wave phenomenon observed with quantized detectors.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:19 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Rubbish.
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
On 10/06/2024 17:25, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its
imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
But that world view is backed up by experiments.
Particles can behave as waves and waves can behave as particles
depending on the experiment. The particle isn't "everywhere at once"
either it is trapped in a spherical shell radius vt expanding around its point of origin with the amplitude of the wavefunction representing the chances of finding it at any particular position.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
Depends on the wavelength of the photon but to have a well defined
frequency the amplitude envelope has to be a good few wavelengths long
and to agree with causality the leading edge must be zero until
sufficient time has passed from its emission to reaching its target. I
expect that there is a canonical shape for a photon amplitude envelope
for given df/f but I don't know what it is or if it has ever been computed.
This aspect of size of a photon always seemed very awkward to me when
working at 21cm neutral hydrogen and measuring what are essentially tiny correlations in narrowband random noise from extremely remote mostly
point sources over a large number of different antenna pairs. What is
pretty clear is that the correlations of such signals are good enough
even on planetary dimensions for VLBI to work!
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:19 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Rubbish.
Do you have any friends?
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/06/2024 17:25, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its
imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
But that world view is backed up by experiments.
Particles can behave as waves and waves can behave as particles
depending on the experiment. The particle isn't "everywhere at once"
either it is trapped in a spherical shell radius vt expanding around its
point of origin with the amplitude of the wavefunction representing the
chances of finding it at any particular position.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
Depends on the wavelength of the photon but to have a well defined
frequency the amplitude envelope has to be a good few wavelengths long
and to agree with causality the leading edge must be zero until
sufficient time has passed from its emission to reaching its target. I
expect that there is a canonical shape for a photon amplitude envelope
for given df/f but I don't know what it is or if it has ever been computed. >>
This aspect of size of a photon always seemed very awkward to me when
working at 21cm neutral hydrogen and measuring what are essentially tiny
correlations in narrowband random noise from extremely remote mostly
point sources over a large number of different antenna pairs. What is
pretty clear is that the correlations of such signals are good enough
even on planetary dimensions for VLBI to work!
Sticking with the semiclassical picture of photodetection is good, because
it avoids almost all of the blunders made by the photons-as-billiard-balls folk, but it doesn’t get you out of the mystery.
The really mysterious thing about photodetection is that a given photon (*)
incident on a large lossless detector gives rise to exactly one detection event, with probability spatialy and temporally weighted by E**2.
Doesn’t seem so bad yet, but consider this:
If the detector is large compared with the pulse width/c, distant points on the detector are separated by a spacelike interval.
That means that when point A detects it, there is no way for that
information to reach point B before the end of the pulse, when E drops to zero, and yet experimentally point B doesn’t detect it.
(*) a quantized excitation of a harmonic oscillator mode of the EM field in
a given set of boundary conditions)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 6/10/24 10:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as
"vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Now now, that's unjustified. Calculus is eminently useful
and perfectly rigorous.
Mathematics is a tool chest. Unfortunately, the way it's
taught, few people end up being able to use the tools.
Jeroen Belleman
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman >>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales...
Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes? >>>
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams..
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its >imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:55:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 10:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as >>>> "vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Now now, that's unjustified. Calculus is eminently useful
and perfectly rigorous.
Mathematics is a tool chest. Unfortunately, the way it's
taught, few people end up being able to use the tools.
Jeroen Belleman
How often do you use real, symbolic calculus?
Solving differential equations?
Sticking with the semiclassical picture of photodetection is good, because
it avoids almost all of the blunders made by the photons-as-billiard-balls folk, but it doesn’t get you out of the mystery.
The really mysterious thing about photodetection is that a given photon (*)
incident on a large lossless detector gives rise to exactly one detection event, with probability spatialy and temporally weighted by E**2.
Doesn’t seem so bad yet, but consider this:
If the detector is large compared with the pulse width/c, distant points on the detector are separated by a spacelike interval.
That means that so when point A detects it, there is no way for the information reach point B before the end of the pulse, when E drops to
zero, and yet experimentally point B doesn’t detect it.
(*) a quantized excitation of a harmonic oscillator mode of the EM field in
a given set of boundary conditions)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:25:30 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales...
Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes? >>>>
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams..
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its
imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
It's unlimited. You can have an interferometer with different arm
lengths and still get single-photon interferance.
I noticed that on a lithium niobate Mach-Zender e/o modulator. The interfering path lengths are different by thousands of wavelengths.
On 6/10/24 20:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[Snip...]
Sticking with the semiclassical picture of photodetection is good, because >> it avoids almost all of the blunders made by the photons-as-billiard-balls >> folk, but it doesn’t get you out of the mystery.
The really mysterious thing about photodetection is that a given photon (*) >>
incident on a large lossless detector gives rise to exactly one detection
event, with probability spatialy and temporally weighted by E**2.
Doesn’t seem so bad yet, but consider this:
If the detector is large compared with the pulse width/c, distant points on >> the detector are separated by a spacelike interval.
That means that so when point A detects it, there is no way for the
information reach point B before the end of the pulse, when E drops to
zero, and yet experimentally point B doesn’t detect it.
(*) a quantized excitation of a harmonic oscillator mode of the EM field in >> a given set of boundary conditions)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
We don't have single-photon-on-demand sources, nor perfect detectors.
Both sources and detectors are probabilistic. I'd like to see how
this argument fares using energy resolving detectors like TESs.
I do not expect the probability of a detection event in one spot to
be affected instantly by a detection event somewhere else. The
collapse of the wave function is an attempt to apply statistical
reasoning to a single event.
Jeroen Belleman
On 10/06/2024 15:45, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 6/10/24 01:56, john larkin wrote:
[...]
The split-beam interferometer was designed specifically to mess with
our heads.
Was it? I think it behaves exacly like you'd expect from
a wave phenomenon observed with quantized detectors.
But the wave phenomena in some experiments (aka wavefunction) can belong
to comparatively heavy objects that we would normally think of as
classical particles. Indeed we can even image the molecules used at
atomic level with scanning tunnelling microscopes.
I'm pretty sure they have diffracted buckyballs through Young's slits. I think the record for complexity is still held by a fluorinated porphyrin
~10k amu 800+ atoms and efforts are underway to diffract a small virus.
More info on Arxiv here : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8343
Experimentally it is quite a tour de force!
Physical intuition tends to break down when you have a superposition of quantum states involved. Attempting to know which slit a particle
actually went through destroys the interference pattern and experiments
using ultra low flux levels with just a single photon in at any one time still show a diffraction pattern. QM is decidedly counter intuitive.
Explores all available paths mathematics gets the right results but I
can't help feeling that there is a way to avoid the action at a distance implied by quantum entanglement when we get all of the physics correct.
I didn't think his talk was all that outrageous. A bit over simplified perhaps but then avoiding almost all of the maths that is inevitable.
On 6/10/24 20:59, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:25:30 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light
*detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light
itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that
the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales...
Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes? >>>>>
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams..
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in
classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its
imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
It's unlimited. You can have an interferometer with different arm
lengths and still get single-photon interferance.
I noticed that on a lithium niobate Mach-Zender e/o modulator. The
interfering path lengths are different by thousands of wavelengths.
Exactly! The path length difference is limited only by the coherence
length of the light source. This is all quite natural when thinking
in terms of waves. When you think of it in terms of photons, it stops
making any sense.
Jeroen Belleman
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:31:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 20:59, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:25:30 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 16:20, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:53 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me>:
I just watched a talk by Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics
at the university of Vienna, and 2022 Nobel laureate, about
quantum effects and entanglement.
I feel a rant bubbling up!
The guy is a mystic, a fraud! He pretended to demonstrate that
light consists of particles by showing a little box that starts
clicking, like a Geiger counter, when exposed to light. Even if
the little box really did detect light, that means nothing! Light >>>>>>> *detection* is quantized, yes, but that does not imply that light >>>>>>> itself is so too.
He attempted to convince the public that entanglement means that >>>>>>> the results of measurements made at two remote places come out
identically, and without any time delay. That's just not true,
but he didn't even give a hint of how this really works. He did
not mention that you have to make *correlated* measurements to
detect entanglement. For that, you need to communicate *what*
measurement is to be made at each location, and that implies
that you either prescribe the exact measurement in advance or
select a subset of the results after the fact. Either way, this
skews the data.
He's in it for the money and the fame. Grrr. And he's one of
many, too.
Jeroen Belleman
Agreed, so much quantum crap, almost like glowball worming sales... >>>>>> Perfessors, Albert the stone counter..
This is nice and came close to the space filled with a fluid paper you gave a link to:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240606152154.htm
it is likely not 100% correct, but a fluid of femtoscopic black holes?
In my school days I came across cases that were obviously wrong,
I declined arguing with the teacher in the days before the exams.. >>>>>>
Entanglement
Imagine you on the beach.
You put a ball in the water, and a few meters away somebody else does the same.
Mysteriously both balls go up and down at the same moment,
'entangled'
Wave crashing on the beach.
There was an experiment recently where they had 2 detectors in the lab, meters away,
connected by a mile of fiber.
Photons were entangled...
Well , in that beach experiment you can tie a wire a mile long between the balls and they still go up and down the same time.
This is simplified, but the detection is then indeed quantified.
I like to play with PMTs etc, do those perfessors know ANYTHING about the equipment they use?
Or even DESIGNED anything ?
But photon entanglement can't be explained, or even thought about, in >>>>> classic-physics terms.
Nor can single-photon interferance.
Just accept and enjoy it.
That's false! Entanglement and interference can easily be understood
in terms of waves and quantized detectors. It's the QM view, with its
imagined photon particle flying everywhere at once that is confusing.
What size do you imagine a photon to be?
It's unlimited. You can have an interferometer with different arm
lengths and still get single-photon interferance.
I noticed that on a lithium niobate Mach-Zender e/o modulator. The
interfering path lengths are different by thousands of wavelengths.
Exactly! The path length difference is limited only by the coherence
length of the light source. This is all quite natural when thinking
in terms of waves. When you think of it in terms of photons, it stops
making any sense.
Jeroen Belleman
A single photon has an infinite coherence length.
What's weird is that I can pulse a superfast laser and hit a detector
with picosecond time delay jitter, even though another experiment
shows that each photon is very long.
It's apparently easy for you to accept that light is made of waves
until it's detected, at which time it turns into particles.
That's the part that's magical to me.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 17:55:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 10:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
... I was ok with mathematics in school until we started
on calculus. I could not, and still cannot, understand concepts such as >>>> "vanishingly small".
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Now now, that's unjustified. Calculus is eminently useful
and perfectly rigorous.
Mathematics is a tool chest. Unfortunately, the way it's
taught, few people end up being able to use the tools.
Jeroen Belleman
How often do you use real, symbolic calculus?
Solving differential equations?
On 6/10/24 19:03, Martin Brown wrote:
Experimentally it is quite a tour de force!
Physical intuition tends to break down when you have a superposition
of quantum states involved. Attempting to know which slit a particle
actually went through destroys the interference pattern and
experiments using ultra low flux levels with just a single photon in
at any one time still show a diffraction pattern. QM is decidedly
counter intuitive.
Explores all available paths mathematics gets the right results but I
can't help feeling that there is a way to avoid the action at a
distance implied by quantum entanglement when we get all of the
physics correct.
I didn't think his talk was all that outrageous. A bit over simplified
perhaps but then avoiding almost all of the maths that is inevitable.
Over-simplified to the point of being devoid of meaning, indeed.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:15:51 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
I do not expect the probability of a detection event in one spot to
be affected instantly by a detection event somewhere else. The
collapse of the wave function is an attempt to apply statistical
reasoning to a single event.
Jeroen Belleman
Higher energy photons, like gamma rays, can be detected with 100% probability. They pack a lot of energy.
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:00:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:19 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Rubbish.
Do you have any friends?
He certainly doesn't have a job.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:19 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Calculus is to arithmetic what astrology is to astronomy.
Rubbish.
Do you have any friends?
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:15:51 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 20:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[Snip...]
Sticking with the semiclassical picture of photodetection is good, because >>> it avoids almost all of the blunders made by the photons-as-billiard-balls >>> folk, but it doesn’t get you out of the mystery.
The really mysterious thing about photodetection is that a given photon (*) >>>
incident on a large lossless detector gives rise to exactly one detection >>> event, with probability spatialy and temporally weighted by E**2.
Doesn’t seem so bad yet, but consider this:
If the detector is large compared with the pulse width/c, distant points on >>> the detector are separated by a spacelike interval.
That means that so when point A detects it, there is no way for the
information reach point B before the end of the pulse, when E drops to
zero, and yet experimentally point B doesn’t detect it.
(*) a quantized excitation of a harmonic oscillator mode of the EM field in >>> a given set of boundary conditions)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
We don't have single-photon-on-demand sources, nor perfect detectors.
Both sources and detectors are probabilistic. I'd like to see how
this argument fares using energy resolving detectors like TESs.
I do not expect the probability of a detection event in one spot to
be affected instantly by a detection event somewhere else. The
collapse of the wave function is an attempt to apply statistical
reasoning to a single event.
Jeroen Belleman
Higher energy photons, like gamma rays, can be detected with 100% probability. They pack a lot of energy.
On 6/10/24 23:24, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:15:51 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 6/10/24 20:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
[Snip...]
Sticking with the semiclassical picture of photodetection is good, because >>>> it avoids almost all of the blunders made by the photons-as-billiard-balls >>>> folk, but it doesn’t get you out of the mystery.
The really mysterious thing about photodetection is that a given photon (*)
incident on a large lossless detector gives rise to exactly one detection >>>> event, with probability spatialy and temporally weighted by E**2.
Doesn’t seem so bad yet, but consider this:
If the detector is large compared with the pulse width/c, distant points on
the detector are separated by a spacelike interval.
That means that so when point A detects it, there is no way for the
information reach point B before the end of the pulse, when E drops to >>>> zero, and yet experimentally point B doesn’t detect it.
(*) a quantized excitation of a harmonic oscillator mode of the EM field in
a given set of boundary conditions)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
We don't have single-photon-on-demand sources, nor perfect detectors.
Both sources and detectors are probabilistic. I'd like to see how
this argument fares using energy resolving detectors like TESs.
I do not expect the probability of a detection event in one spot to
be affected instantly by a detection event somewhere else. The
collapse of the wave function is an attempt to apply statistical
reasoning to a single event.
Jeroen Belleman
Higher energy photons, like gamma rays, can be detected with 100%
probability. They pack a lot of energy.
Yes, but you'd need to use quite dense stuff to have a good
chance of intercepting it. Lead tungstate is the thing these
days.
Jeroen Belleman
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 93:29:58 |
Calls: | 8,690 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,250 |
Messages: | 5,947,125 |