Barry Smith talk and single photon

[Alex Shkotin]

Barry raised a spiral (maybe even fractal) of interesting topics.

This is one of them. 

I remember that a single photon may be felled by a human eye.

I asked Gemini: Is there any information about experiments where the perception of a single photon by the eye was recorded?

And got this: 

Yes, there are studies that confirm the human eye's ability to perceive individual photons.

One of the first such experiments was conducted by the Soviet physiologist S.V. Kravkov in the 1930s. He used short flashes of light of very low intensity and found that some subjects could distinguish individual photons.

Later, in the 1940s, the American physicist Selwyn and the Dutch physicist Dent conducted a series of experiments in which subjects had to determine whether there was a short light pulse or not. The results of these experiments showed that the human eye is capable of registering individual photons with a probability greater than random guessing.

In the 1980s, a group of researchers led by David Williams of the University of Rochester developed a method that allows you to "see" individual photons falling on the retina. Using this method, they were able to measure how often a person actually perceives individual photons, and it turned out that this probability is quite high.

These and other studies confirm that the human eye has amazing sensitivity and is able to register even individual photons.

Here are some links to articles and research on this topic:

• Man really could see a single photon: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172

• A person can see one photon: experimental confirmation: https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/podcasty/eureka/wideo/8616428,dr-krzysztof-tyszka-porownujac-pojedyncze-neurony-biologiczny-i-fotoniczny-mozemy-powiedziec-ze-ten-opracowany-przez-nas-jest-duzo-szybszy.html1

• Testing the limits of human vision with quantum states of light: past, present and future experiments: https://flexikon.doccheck.com/de/Vortestwahrscheinlichkeit

I hope this information is helpful!

◻️

And let me add that most atomic nuclei are stable, as well as electrons.

Alex

[Barry Smith]

This is indeed helpful. And shows that one aspect of what 'single photon' might mean.

But now on the other side, consider the following experiment (from the 2nd edition of our book):

To exemplify the situation of total break down of the mereological and causal particle

concept in quantum mechanics, consider the famous Pfleegor-Mandel experiment

from 1967, which showed the interference between two beams coming from two independent

lasers. When they prepared photons using two separated lasers to interfere in

coherent phase, a wave interference pattern resulted as expected. But the lasers were

then attenuated so much that in the field of the experiment there remained only one photon

– yet an interference pattern was detected nonetheless. This single photon must

have been created from the superposition of two field modes with occupation numbers 0

and 1 with zero photons from the first and one photon from the second laser and vice

versa (Falkenburg 2007, 7.3.1)20. Because of the interference pattern, the photon must

have been created by both lasers, in other words, both lasers emitted a quantum wave,

though only one photon was detected. This one photon is made of contributions from

both lasers. The detected photon has no path in spacetime and no causal provenance. It

also is not clear how it is formed. Any view of the complementarity of wave and particle

resting on classical physics completely breaks down. The photon cannot be understood

as a particle in anything like the classical sense, though it can be detected as such.

[Alex Shkotin]

Barry, Jobst and All,

Before diving into details and texts, let me write down my first impressions.

In my opinion, the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment from 1967 is not much different from interference itself: each photon flies through one or another slit, and the picture is not a sum of the flight through each slit separately.

This refers to the idea of what space the photon flies through, i.e. what space it "takes into account" when flying. And here it turns out that this is not a line (it does not fly like a bullet) but a space of approximately several wavelengths (so-called).

This is the property of the movement of a photon, electron and other particles according to De Broglie. This does not mean that they are not particles. It means that they move like this.

That is, the photon flies through empty space created by a certain configuration of bodies and depending on this configuration.

It seems that N. Wiener or A. Einstein used the law in the form of a function of position in space from time, not differentiable at any point, to describe the motion of a Brownian particle.

The ontological divide really consists in the fact that some say (and I am with them):

a photon exists at every moment of its motion. But it moves in a fairy-tale way.

Others tell a fairy tale:

There is something different from a photon, for example, a field that interacts with charged particles in such a way that it creates the illusion of a photon.

This division is certainly crude, but it seems to me that it captures the essence of the ontological dilemma.

As for the stability of atomic nuclei and electrons. This is the usual approach of physicists: to simplify the description of a particular phenomenon in order to capture the properties that interest us, but to be distracted (Landau wrote "to neglect") from unimportant details.

So, having the keenness to see nuclei, electrons and photons (OMG, I wrote this) scurrying between them (it would probably be more correct to call this a thought experiment), after some time of observation we notice: there is nothing else. Here are nuclei trembling in the nodes of the crystal lattice. Here is a cloud of electrons rushing among them (it seems Gemini writes that the average speed of an electron in a body is 2000 km/sec).

And when Ravi tells us that the nucleus is somehow arranged, we have to say that "the electron does not know about this" 😀 Or as Landau would say "this can be neglected".

It seems we agree that atomic nuclei and electrons exist and are stable. Can we agree that a photon exists as long as it flies from electron to electron?

My direction is as follows.

Let's discuss the features and laws of movement of a more or less huge number (10^10) nucleus interacting (BS) with electrons.  The working term is "nuclear-electron connectivity" (NEC).

The point #1 is that this huge amount of nucleus may be ordered just with math accuracy - crystals.

This means that we can see such a NEC, i.e. get a 3D-image in our mind.

Of course step-by-step movement is molecules (M. Gruninger study) and then two branches:

-a number of states of matter, including many exotic, like Bose–Einstein condensate - Wikipedia. 

-a number of biological cells and cell's systems - organisms.

Sorry, I was daydreaming 🤣

Alex

чт, 13 февр. 2025 г. в 09:07, Landgrebe, Jobst <jobst.l...@cognotekt.com>:

To add to this: Single photons are always detected (not directly observed), e.g. on a screen behind a laser beam going through two vertical light polarisers set in an angle theta against each other. However, before the measurement, one cannot say if a given photon (which is a field quant) will be detected, only many measurements can yield the detection of the proportion of photons predicted by quantum physics (which depends on the angle of the polarisers, for example at theta=pi/2, no single photon comes through). The photon is merely a stochastic unit which can be viewed as a single entity after measurement; in realistic terms, the observed phenomenon however is merely an indicator of the photon, which is called particle only upon detection (break down of the wave function is the metaphysical clause for it). Now the measurement turns the quantum wave into a macroscopic detection, so that we have the problem of using phenomena from classical physics to measure quantum events. This is also the fundamental problems with high energy physics in which the Lorentz force is used to describe the trajectory of particles as if they were moving in a classical sense, though they are not. See Falkenburg "Particle metaphysics".

As to visual perception, of course our theory says that electromagnetic radiation excites the retinal receptors via the energy conveyed by photons. So the photons arrive as waves but excite the receptors as particles. What are they? We do not know. We can only talk about them using mathematical idealities, structures of essences.

Now to the stability of matter. We never say that matter is not stable (that is nuts). But saying that we do not know what matter is really made of since the high energy physics experiments are highly indirect, full of metaphysics and use macroscopic analogies which do not carry through is a different matter. Heisenberg's criticism of the quark concept has not been refuted. We write (2nd ed. of the book):

Quarks

The situation in the case of quarks is different again. Quarks are the ele- mentary particles of which the hadrons are made. The two most important members of the hadron family are the nucleons: protons and neutrons. The existence of quarks is inferred by induction from the results of scattering ex- periments, which show evidence of point-like constituents of the nucleons. Ac- cording to the current standard model, quarks have fractional charges which always add up to the charges of the hadrons they constitute. But, as the (by then very old) Heisenberg pointed out in 1976 – two years after the break- through of the standard model – it must be possible to decompose a composite system such as a nucleon ‘into constituent parts of a rest mass which is very large in comparison to the energy required to decompose the system’ (Falken- burg 2007, p. 253). However, when protons – which have a rest mass of 1 GeV22 – are scattered with leptons (such as electrons) at energy levels of around 100 GeV, the result is the creation of an energy-dependent hadron shower. This means that, in contrast to what is the case when an atomic nucleus is subjected to this treatment, the proton is not decomposed into detectable constituents. Its quarks cannot be detected directly.

Heisenberg’s (valid) objection to the quark hypothesis was countered through the formulation of the confinement hypothesis, which states – once more breaking the boundaries of what we can imagine – that quarks are ‘free in bound states’, and that moreover they are bound together in hadrons by a binding energy which rises in proportion to their distance from each other.23 The particles that mediate the strong force interacting between quarks are called gluons, which are a special kind of boson. That having been said, there is still no explanation of how this quark confinement leads to the bound sys- tems of the hadrons (op. cit. p. 254). Furthermore, quarks (and the gluons which mediate their interactions) cannot be understood as particles, but only as quark-antiquark and gluon field quants, the quantities of which depend on the scattering energy used in the scattering experiments.24

23This formulation itself shows that our common sense understanding of words like ‘free’ and ‘bound’ is not applicable to these quantum phenomena in high-energy physics.

24Here the phrase ‘quark-antiquark and gluon’ refers to a statistical ensemble and not to individuals.

So that ultimately we cannot explain the stability of matter, or only do so by using the Schroedinger equation and say that "the electron cannot fall into the nucleus because its energy level matehmatically determines its quantum wave location", but that is circular and no causal explanation (which is impossible using mathematics alone, but in quantum physics we are left alone with measurements, equations and cover this up using metaphysical analogies or unwarranted causal prepositions as in the above example).

J. 

[Nadin, Mihai]

Wheeler introduced a different angle: the trajectory of the observed photon is changed. This includes change of the path even before the photon is to be observed.

Mihai Nadin

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROTkP84%3DohCV9TREwYyKRTyeo1uUDqkD%3Dzed9Kcsc7Atsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Mikhai, thank you!

I asked Gemini to clarify your proposition [1].

But for me, observation is just a normal physical process with one addition: the mind receives information.

So some interactions change the past, and others do not?

Fascinating.

Alex

[1] https://gemini.google.com/app/d87e7c0607be8a04 

AS:What are the main Wheeler's ideas and where to read them?

Gemini:

John Archibald Wheeler was a giant of 20th-century theoretical physics, leaving behind a legacy of groundbreaking ideas that continue to shape our understanding of the universe.1 Here are some of his main contributions:

1. Black Holes:

• Popularizing the term: While the concept of gravitational collapse had been around for a while, Wheeler is credited with coining the catchy term "black hole" in 1967, which helped to bring these enigmatic objects into the forefront of scientific imagination.2

• "Black holes have no hair": This idea, developed by Wheeler, suggests that black holes are remarkably simple objects characterized only by their mass, charge, and angular momentum.3 All other information about the matter that falls into a black hole is lost.

2. Geometrodynamics:

• Unifying forces: Wheeler's vision of geometrodynamics aimed to describe all physical phenomena, including gravity and electromagnetism, as manifestations of the geometry of spacetime.4 He imagined the fabric of the universe as a chaotic "quantum foam" at the subatomic level.5

3. Quantum Gravity:

• Wheeler-DeWitt equation: In collaboration with Bryce DeWitt, Wheeler developed the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which is considered a cornerstone of quantum gravity research.6 It attempts to describe the "wave function of the Universe," providing a framework for understanding the universe at the quantum level.

4. Quantum Information:

• "It from Bit": Wheeler championed the idea that information is fundamental to the universe.7 His "it from bit" concept suggests that everything in the physical world, from particles to spacetime itself, arises from binary choices, or bits of information.8

• Delayed-choice experiment: This thought experiment, which Wheeler proposed, explores the mind-bending idea that observations made in the present can influence the past behavior of quantum systems.9 It highlights the deep connections between observation, information, and the nature of reality.

Where to read Wheeler's ideas:

• "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics" (Autobiography): This book offers a personal perspective on Wheeler's life and work, providing insights into his motivations and the development of his ideas.10

• "Gravitation" (Textbook): Co-authored with Charles Misner and Kip Thorne, this massive textbook is a comprehensive and authoritative guide to general relativity, covering many of the topics that Wheeler contributed to.11

• "A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime": This book provides a more accessible introduction to general relativity and cosmology, making it suitable for readers with some background in physics.12

• "Spacetime Physics": Co-authored with Edwin Taylor, this book explores the concepts of special and general relativity in a clear and engaging way.13

• "Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity": Another collaboration with Edwin Taylor, this book offers a deeper dive into the fascinating world of black holes.14

• "Magic without Magic: John Archibald Wheeler" (Collection of essays): This book gathers some of Wheeler's most important writings on various topics, including quantum mechanics, cosmology, and the philosophy of physics.15

• "Quantum Theory and Measurement" (Edited with Wojciech Zurek): This collection of papers explores the foundations of quantum mechanics and the role of measurement in the quantum world.16

In addition to these books, you can find numerous articles and interviews with Wheeler online, which offer further insights into his ideas and perspectives.

Important Note: Wheeler's ideas are often complex and challenging, requiring a solid foundation in physics and mathematics to fully grasp. However, his writings and lectures are often peppered with insightful analogies and thought experiments, making them accessible to a wider audience interested in exploring the frontiers of physics.

пт, 14 февр. 2025 г. в 04:00, Nadin, Mihai <na...@utdallas.edu>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/DM8PR01MB69046782E03689CA46364351DAFE2%40DM8PR01MB6904.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Let me add something.

The idea is that the law of motion of a photon or electron may be very different from what we keep for macro particles.

Where the law of motion is r(t). And trajectory is just a line in space.

Why doesn't the electron radiate when moving around the nucleus? Because it has no speed - its law of motion is not differentiable with respect to time.

Why wouldn't a photon visit both slits during interference?

We need a proof of the theorem: there is no law of motion of a photon as a particle that would give interference.

Alex

пт, 14 февр. 2025 г. в 11:17, Alex Shkotin <alex.s...@gmail.com>:

[Ravi Sharma]

Alex, Prof Landgrebe, Barry, others

from Alex

Quote [And when Ravi tells us that the nucleus is somehow arranged, we have to say that "the electron does not know about this" 😀 Or as Landau would say "this can be neglected".

It seems we agree that atomic nuclei and electrons exist and are stable. Can we agree that a photon exists as long as it flies from electron to electron? ] Unquote

In a couple of months or sooner I will see my paper online in a journal, then I will share details that show transformation that creates mass particles - including e p n and Photon.

Prof Landgrebe correctly describes based also on LHC data that Quarks do not exist as single free particles at least in current observations but Q antiQ resonances and multiple combinations are appearing as resonances. 

Seeing photons is intriguing and since sensitivity is a variant, intermediate observations through detectors can mediate those experiments, yet the dual nature of particles and waves still persists. Temporarily one can choose Quantum description and also work separately on classical quantum integration. (Boltzmann reference was a good one!).

Proton is the most stable particle and the outer shell of the Nucleus is the most stable matter we have today. Repeating again I said that the electron remembers its origin and rules that make it behave according to shell rules in various orbits around the nucleus.

More later.

Another angle is to ask topological theorists (e.g. skyrmions) on details and structures of e and Photon. (They also often use QED and Maxwell Equations).

A question, Is Hamiltonian and/ or Lagrangian a better depiction than Schrodinger Equation?

Regards.

See

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROShYdzQbfsbuqafeq_6AS4HBvn4gmTqF16J%3Dk4dSt06ZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi,

The only ontological question I have is: Is it correct to say that an electron exists as a particle at any moment of time after being issued by electron e1, and before being absorbed by electron e2?

And the same for electrons, protons, hydrogen atoms, and molecules of water.

Alex

вс, 16 февр. 2025 г. в 18:27, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5fuYeG8OH1Xo9vV4rx633gRGEFwy6OeccjpiDF-WyO6uQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravi Sharma]

Alex

What do we mean by issued?

Photons or electrons?

Also after hydrogen atom molecular physics based on valence rules and periodic table stable till 116.

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROQ1YtsyM9Z0_nsyJ6vdtS7GyMqA3p7FAP9Z6rCTe3EO7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi:

What do we mean by issued?

Photons or electrons?

AS: photons. Sorry for the typo.

So, for photons my question is: Is it correct to say that a photon exists as a particle at any moment of time after being emitted by electron e1, and before being absorbed by electron e2?

Alex

[Ravi Sharma]

Photon is emitted from the Nucleus and transformed based on its interaction with an electron, in an atom for example. (e.g. in Compton and Raman effects).

Yes in Quantum description of particles it is a particle (It can be described as wave as in duality description and as far as I can with very limited exposure, wave nature works for most purposes). We are not at QCD level of conversation.

NOTE: In my new paper I will discuss it as a composite of smaller entities and of two kinds but till my paper is online, you can accept or reject it as you like.

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

--

All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxROQbK_36qoAobc5enCpn1hOOkfnyxXG8OkeSmEZYJMszpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

Ravi: "Photon is emitted from the Nucleus"

AS: No way. Photon is emitted by an electron on its way from one level of energy to another.

Alex

пн, 17 февр. 2025 г. в 11:29, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5fGviQ2gBzMbEzsM5YfDFjsBELs2Vfgdbg_y1bV-er3wA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravi Sharma]

Both ways  are right.

Remember Gamma Rays (photons from radioactive and other nuclei). More on the Photon formation after my paper is published.

Compton scattering only changes direction of photon

Raman scattering is when photon is absorbed at one wavelength and emitted with another.

from AI

Electron-photon absorption emission conversion" refers to the process where an electron in an atom absorbs energy from a photon, moving to a higher energy level, and then subsequently emits another photon when it returns to its original energy level, effectively converting the energy of the absorbed photon into a potentially different emitted photon. 

Thanks.

Ravi

(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)

NASA Apollo Achievement Award

Former Scientific Secretary iSRO HQ

Ontolog Board of Trustees

Particle and Space Physics

Senior Enterprise Architect

SAE Fuel Cell Standards Member

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAFxxRORUAzZ%3DpYpWDWUZ9wf6BypxVSFgRx8%2BvH_xBEHK8j-LVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex Shkotin]

OK. gamma ray I accept, but this is the exception that proves the rule🏋️

Everyday initial light is from electrons.

пн, 17 февр. 2025 г. в 17:56, Ravi Sharma <drravi...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5d1SV6J-S_9692DMNnH6v6c1aqqSscn%3D_nYHhkjAnd2hA%40mail.gmail.com.

[alex.shkotin]

Ravi, 

I missed a very large part of the photons around us.

Gemini: "The energy of photons emitted during thermal vibrations of nuclei is usually very small. This radiation belongs to infrared or microwave electromagnetic radiation and is invisible to the human eye."

Of course, here we also need to look at the contribution of electron spectra in this range, but nuclei do emit photons 🥼

Thank you

Alex

понедельник, 17 февраля 2025 г. в 19:22:41 UTC+3, Alex Shkotin: