info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Photon wavelength? And Maxwell's single ray of EM radiation?
74 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 2:29:12 AM8/13/21
to
Here is an interesting commercial site that sells PHOTON GENERATORS of almost any desired range of frequencies:
https://www.kmlabs.com/en/wavelength-to-photon-energy-calculator
It seems to be a serious technical company and, on this page, it provides
a calculator that relates properties of photons: energy and wavelength (therefore frequency) plus flux power and flux rate of photons.
The formulae that they use (are displayed) are elementary:
E = h.f = h.c/L (in Ev)
P = F.E (in uW), where F is the flux of photons per second.
You can play with any of the four entries, and the others relate immediately.
But, to obtain the frequency, you have to do the math with f = c/L.
What made me wonder was how come a photon has wavelength, as it's a
transversal measurement of an EM waveform, which brings me to Maxwell,
because I can't imagine a photon with longitudinal (time) and transversal
amplitude (EM fields), which causes to me a dilemma.
IF a photon has such manifestations, then it occupies a site in the space
which varies widely with frequency.
1- You'd have photons 1 meter long at 300 Mhz.
2- You'd have photons 1 cm long at 30 Ghz.
3- You'd have photons 500 nm long at 600 Thz (visible light).
4- You'd have photons 50 nm long at 6 Phz (UV light).
5- You'd have photons 100 pm long at 3 Ehz (X-rays)
and so on. In 4 and 5, the photon can ionize atoms easily, even when the
average atom size is 1 Armnstrong (0.1 nm).
So, how come an electron of an H atom can get the whole h.f energy of a
photon type 4 if the cross-section of such photon is (avg.) 500 times larger
than the accepted average size of an atom (not to mention the electron, which is sized down this value by 100,000,000 times?).
At this paper, the cross-section of EM radiation is defined by the frequency
at which molecules absorb EM radiation for any reason, and relate it to the
wavelength of the EM radiation. It can happens at microwave regions and
far beyond, without ionization required.
So, a long way since simplistic models in old QM, and also shocking
co-existence of the duality wave-particle (real or not).
https://nebula.esa.int/sites/default/files/neb_study/158/C11340ExS.pdf
But, digging into the maxwellian world, for a given EM single ray, it is that:
The effective area of an isotropical antenna is given as
A = 0.08 λ²
Being that E and H fields of an EM wave carry, each one, half the intensity of
a planar EM wave (sinusoidal), the total intensity can be put in terms of E field only. So, for a sinusoidal EM wave of frequency f (
Iavg = c.εo.Eo²/2
where c is the speed of light, εo is the permittivity of free space, and Eo is the maximum electric field strength; intensity, as always, is power per unit area (here in W/m2).
In this case, the power captured by an isotropical antenna is about:
Pavg = 0.04 λ².c.εo.Eo² (in Watts)
But, also, the power conveyed by a single ray of EM radiation (emitted by a
planckian resonator), E=h.f, so
Pem = h.f/τ (E is the energy per wavelength, f its frequency and τ
the duration of the EM wave). Unit is Watt.
then, equating Pavg and Pem, it gives
0.04 λ².c.εo.Eo² = h.f/τ
and, finally
h.f = 0.04 τ.λ².τ.c.εo.Eo²
*****************************
I wonder if the unit of energy h.f involved in an absorption or emission of
a "quanta of energy° can be related in this way with the EM properties of
the burst of EM energy, with a duration of τ seconds, providing that λ and f
satisfy c = λ.f
It's understood that quantum emission and absorption take a time in the
region of nanoseconds.
My questions are:
- Can be possible that τ seconds represent the lower value of
emission or absorption of EM energy in the atom? If, for absorption,
τ last more than the actual time involved? The reciprocal question
also applies for the emission phenomenon.
- Can be possible that, for shorter times, the single ray (quanta) use
its excess of energy to give part of it to other constituents of the atom?
Or such energy vanishes in the quantum vacuum.
- At any case, what actually represent the wavelength of a photon?
https://www.kmlabs.com/en/wavelength-to-photon-energy-calculator
It seems to be a serious technical company and, on this page, it provides
a calculator that relates properties of photons: energy and wavelength (therefore frequency) plus flux power and flux rate of photons.
The formulae that they use (are displayed) are elementary:
E = h.f = h.c/L (in Ev)
P = F.E (in uW), where F is the flux of photons per second.
You can play with any of the four entries, and the others relate immediately.
But, to obtain the frequency, you have to do the math with f = c/L.
What made me wonder was how come a photon has wavelength, as it's a
transversal measurement of an EM waveform, which brings me to Maxwell,
because I can't imagine a photon with longitudinal (time) and transversal
amplitude (EM fields), which causes to me a dilemma.
IF a photon has such manifestations, then it occupies a site in the space
which varies widely with frequency.
1- You'd have photons 1 meter long at 300 Mhz.
2- You'd have photons 1 cm long at 30 Ghz.
3- You'd have photons 500 nm long at 600 Thz (visible light).
4- You'd have photons 50 nm long at 6 Phz (UV light).
5- You'd have photons 100 pm long at 3 Ehz (X-rays)
and so on. In 4 and 5, the photon can ionize atoms easily, even when the
average atom size is 1 Armnstrong (0.1 nm).
So, how come an electron of an H atom can get the whole h.f energy of a
photon type 4 if the cross-section of such photon is (avg.) 500 times larger
than the accepted average size of an atom (not to mention the electron, which is sized down this value by 100,000,000 times?).
At this paper, the cross-section of EM radiation is defined by the frequency
at which molecules absorb EM radiation for any reason, and relate it to the
wavelength of the EM radiation. It can happens at microwave regions and
far beyond, without ionization required.
So, a long way since simplistic models in old QM, and also shocking
co-existence of the duality wave-particle (real or not).
https://nebula.esa.int/sites/default/files/neb_study/158/C11340ExS.pdf
But, digging into the maxwellian world, for a given EM single ray, it is that:
The effective area of an isotropical antenna is given as
A = 0.08 λ²
Being that E and H fields of an EM wave carry, each one, half the intensity of
a planar EM wave (sinusoidal), the total intensity can be put in terms of E field only. So, for a sinusoidal EM wave of frequency f (
Iavg = c.εo.Eo²/2
where c is the speed of light, εo is the permittivity of free space, and Eo is the maximum electric field strength; intensity, as always, is power per unit area (here in W/m2).
In this case, the power captured by an isotropical antenna is about:
Pavg = 0.04 λ².c.εo.Eo² (in Watts)
But, also, the power conveyed by a single ray of EM radiation (emitted by a
planckian resonator), E=h.f, so
Pem = h.f/τ (E is the energy per wavelength, f its frequency and τ
the duration of the EM wave). Unit is Watt.
then, equating Pavg and Pem, it gives
0.04 λ².c.εo.Eo² = h.f/τ
and, finally
h.f = 0.04 τ.λ².τ.c.εo.Eo²
*****************************
I wonder if the unit of energy h.f involved in an absorption or emission of
a "quanta of energy° can be related in this way with the EM properties of
the burst of EM energy, with a duration of τ seconds, providing that λ and f
satisfy c = λ.f
It's understood that quantum emission and absorption take a time in the
region of nanoseconds.
My questions are:
- Can be possible that τ seconds represent the lower value of
emission or absorption of EM energy in the atom? If, for absorption,
τ last more than the actual time involved? The reciprocal question
also applies for the emission phenomenon.
- Can be possible that, for shorter times, the single ray (quanta) use
its excess of energy to give part of it to other constituents of the atom?
Or such energy vanishes in the quantum vacuum.
- At any case, what actually represent the wavelength of a photon?
Odd Bodkin
Aug 13, 2021, 8:45:37 AM8/13/21
to
any physical length.
This is easily testable if you think about it for half a minute. Just ask
about energy delivery time from a photon impacting a target.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 1:13:15 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 9:45:37 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
---------
As it was originally stated by Planck, the founder of QM and the "inventor" of the photon:
"Light travels as a wave AND is absorbed and emitter by resonators as a discrete unit of energy,
which contains a quantum of action, with energy ε = h.f"
Perennial and unchallenged explanation, since December 1900.
A SINGLE ray of light at the BB cavity, as measured, has a frequency f = 1/T, where T is the period
of a unitary EM wave, which satisfies c = λ.f or c = λ/T.
So, a single ray of light delivers the energy ε = h.f = h/T in EVERY SINGLE WAVELENGTH (in Joules).
So, the frequency of photons in a single ray of light is "f" photons/sec.
The power of a single ray of light is valued as n.ε/𝛤, where n is an integer and 𝛤 is the duration of the ray of light
(a ray of light doesn't have an infinite duration). But, as waveforms are created with entire wavelengths (not fractions),
then 𝛤 contains multiple integer units of T, which is the period of the EM ray).
By doing so, the power P = n.ε/𝛤 = ε/T = h.f² .
But, only a fraction of that power, in time τ, is emitted or absorpted by elementary "resonators" (atoms).
Finally, in engineering, the power is a concept that implies INFINITE TIME. To obtain the power of a sinusoidal
electrical signal, it's assumed that the ENERGY contained in a single wavelength is delivered from -∞ to +∞.
The fact that such waveform doesn't last infinite time, and only exist for a finite period of time, is DISCARDED.
Why? Because power P is obtained by integrating the energy E(t) between such infinities, and this would render
INFINITE energy.
So, as well as it happens in engineering about the nature of electrical signals: they are not perfect sinusoidals and
transients at the start and end render a gaussian shape of energy on the transform domain, instead of a pure, perfect
Dirac impulse of energy at the frequency f, the same "license" is applied to any waveform of arbitrary duration. The
power is calculated over a single period in constant waveforms.
So, the equation
h.f = 0.04 τ.λ².τ.c.εo.Eo²
marries both discrete quantum world and continuous maxwellian world, but contains two variables in one equation,
which are τ and E, with its validity within a single atom and a single action of energy manifestation.
It left the question of WHAT a photon is, besides a PRACTICAL way to compute the exchange of energy in the atomic world?
I never believed in the existence of photons as "particles of any kind". I believe that the burst of energy h.f is a convenient
way to packetize the math involved in energy transfer, assuming that such a packet is a corpuscle of light.
Think about the consequences of infinity involved in the explanation of energy transport. No way to handle it, in our mind.
So, the photon is a convenient simplification for a burst of sinusoidal waveform with FINITE duration, which left behind
transient manifestation at its creation and extinction.
Yet more, when a ray of light is analyzed, the uncomfortable reality that it's composed of ZILLIONS of bursts of energy
is left behind, and everyone lives happily forever.
<snip>
> > - At any case, what actually represent the wavelength of a photon?
> >
> If it helps, the wavelength of a photon has nothing whatsoever to do with
> any physical length.
>
> This is easily testable if you think about it for half a minute. Just ask
> about energy delivery time from a photon impacting a target.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
You are wrong and you replied in a hurry, without proper thinking.
> >
> If it helps, the wavelength of a photon has nothing whatsoever to do with
> any physical length.
>
> This is easily testable if you think about it for half a minute. Just ask
> about energy delivery time from a photon impacting a target.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
As it was originally stated by Planck, the founder of QM and the "inventor" of the photon:
"Light travels as a wave AND is absorbed and emitter by resonators as a discrete unit of energy,
which contains a quantum of action, with energy ε = h.f"
Perennial and unchallenged explanation, since December 1900.
A SINGLE ray of light at the BB cavity, as measured, has a frequency f = 1/T, where T is the period
of a unitary EM wave, which satisfies c = λ.f or c = λ/T.
So, a single ray of light delivers the energy ε = h.f = h/T in EVERY SINGLE WAVELENGTH (in Joules).
So, the frequency of photons in a single ray of light is "f" photons/sec.
The power of a single ray of light is valued as n.ε/𝛤, where n is an integer and 𝛤 is the duration of the ray of light
(a ray of light doesn't have an infinite duration). But, as waveforms are created with entire wavelengths (not fractions),
then 𝛤 contains multiple integer units of T, which is the period of the EM ray).
By doing so, the power P = n.ε/𝛤 = ε/T = h.f² .
But, only a fraction of that power, in time τ, is emitted or absorpted by elementary "resonators" (atoms).
Finally, in engineering, the power is a concept that implies INFINITE TIME. To obtain the power of a sinusoidal
electrical signal, it's assumed that the ENERGY contained in a single wavelength is delivered from -∞ to +∞.
The fact that such waveform doesn't last infinite time, and only exist for a finite period of time, is DISCARDED.
Why? Because power P is obtained by integrating the energy E(t) between such infinities, and this would render
INFINITE energy.
So, as well as it happens in engineering about the nature of electrical signals: they are not perfect sinusoidals and
transients at the start and end render a gaussian shape of energy on the transform domain, instead of a pure, perfect
Dirac impulse of energy at the frequency f, the same "license" is applied to any waveform of arbitrary duration. The
power is calculated over a single period in constant waveforms.
So, the equation
h.f = 0.04 τ.λ².τ.c.εo.Eo²
which are τ and E, with its validity within a single atom and a single action of energy manifestation.
It left the question of WHAT a photon is, besides a PRACTICAL way to compute the exchange of energy in the atomic world?
I never believed in the existence of photons as "particles of any kind". I believe that the burst of energy h.f is a convenient
way to packetize the math involved in energy transfer, assuming that such a packet is a corpuscle of light.
Think about the consequences of infinity involved in the explanation of energy transport. No way to handle it, in our mind.
So, the photon is a convenient simplification for a burst of sinusoidal waveform with FINITE duration, which left behind
transient manifestation at its creation and extinction.
Yet more, when a ray of light is analyzed, the uncomfortable reality that it's composed of ZILLIONS of bursts of energy
is left behind, and everyone lives happily forever.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 13, 2021, 1:51:06 PM8/13/21
to
And you apparently are unaware of single-photon detectors, as well as
photon counters.
Message has been deleted
Dono.
Aug 13, 2021, 1:57:05 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:52:58 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
Photoelectric effect proves that you are full of shit (fittingly for a shit eater)
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:13:15 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I never believed in the existence of photons as "particles of any kind".
> No one gives a shit what crank Richard Hertz believes in.
>
> > I never believed in the existence of photons as "particles of any kind".
Photoelectric effect proves that you are full of shit (fittingly for a shit eater)
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 2:49:22 PM8/13/21
to
stand to defend Einstein, you just read them with fast glimpses to see if something
hits you, and dismiss the rest. You form your opinions just as an opinionated person
which is against everything that doesn't fit your doctrines.
Give me some credit this time, and take time to read it through.
Specially in the first few lines, where I post a link of A COMPANY, which sells instruments
for the INDUSTRY, specially PHOTON GENERATORS (a serious matter) to be used by other
companies in their labs or assembly lines, or for medical sciences.
Visit the place, and also test the Photon Calculator that the company has put in there, and
also continue to learn about what I intended to do with maxwellian and planckian photons.
Don't be stubborn. I wrote the OP with nothing but seriousness (and doubts) in my mind.
mitchr...@gmail.com
Aug 13, 2021, 2:54:27 PM8/13/21
to
A point particle does not wave.
EM forces do.
Mitchell Raemsch
EM forces do.
Mitchell Raemsch
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 3:16:49 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 2:57:05 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
<snip>
> > > I never believed in the existence of photons as "particles of any kind".
> > No one gives a shit what crank Richard Hertz believes in.
> Photoelectric effect proves that you are full of shit (fittingly for a shit eater)
MF Dono, for once be serious. Read my answer to Bodkin, above.
Don't be so shitty to post a true effect which I didn't question at all.
This post has nothing to do with trolling Einstein's stuff. I agree with most of his paper
on this matter (except point 1, which is wrong, and that he denied the work of Planck and "h").
Even when he didn't wanted to acknowledge Planck for "h", he uses (and cites) his work, as
well as prior Wien work on BB subject.
Now, said that, read and analyze my OP as if you weren't such a detractor or my opinions.
Almost NEVER I post here ideas or partial theories about ANYTHING. I only write my points of view
about something.
In this case, I elaborated some formulae under my own risk (most of them are the real thing), and I
try to RECONCILIATE the duality of waves and particles.
I strongly believe that what's is called "a photon" is a burst of single and pure EM ray, with discrete duration.
As it poses momentum (as Maxwell proved), it can perfectly explain its actions over matter, given that they
convey energy.
When Einstein wrote his paper on the photoelectric effect, which I credit to him for his explanation in 1905,
NOBODY in the entire world was aware of the concepts of bursts of energy (specially gaussian shaped bursts).
It took MORE than 20 years and the rapid development of the radio industries, that tools to analyze behaviors
in time and frequency started to being adopted (Fourier and Laplace transforms and spectrum analyzers).
Not even QM developers, in the 1920's, were aware of such possibilities to analyze TRANSIENT SIGNALS, their
frequency spectrum or their mathematical representation. By late 1940's and on, such theories were of common
use by engineers, physicists and others in many different sciences.
So, going back to point 1: Read my OP, visit the industrial site (which is based on photonics) and analyze my
proposal to equate Maxwell with Planck-Einstein: EM bursts vs. corpuscles (photons), and have some reflexive
thoughts about how come we live, even today, with such a duality (which I consider a mistake).
I think that such a short burst of energy can do the same job as the photon, when we go down to infinitesimal
quantities and the quantum world.
Now, give it a try or shut up. Don't answer this in anger.
<snip>
> > > I never believed in the existence of photons as "particles of any kind".
> > No one gives a shit what crank Richard Hertz believes in.
> Photoelectric effect proves that you are full of shit (fittingly for a shit eater)
Don't be so shitty to post a true effect which I didn't question at all.
This post has nothing to do with trolling Einstein's stuff. I agree with most of his paper
on this matter (except point 1, which is wrong, and that he denied the work of Planck and "h").
Even when he didn't wanted to acknowledge Planck for "h", he uses (and cites) his work, as
well as prior Wien work on BB subject.
Now, said that, read and analyze my OP as if you weren't such a detractor or my opinions.
Almost NEVER I post here ideas or partial theories about ANYTHING. I only write my points of view
about something.
In this case, I elaborated some formulae under my own risk (most of them are the real thing), and I
try to RECONCILIATE the duality of waves and particles.
I strongly believe that what's is called "a photon" is a burst of single and pure EM ray, with discrete duration.
As it poses momentum (as Maxwell proved), it can perfectly explain its actions over matter, given that they
convey energy.
When Einstein wrote his paper on the photoelectric effect, which I credit to him for his explanation in 1905,
NOBODY in the entire world was aware of the concepts of bursts of energy (specially gaussian shaped bursts).
It took MORE than 20 years and the rapid development of the radio industries, that tools to analyze behaviors
in time and frequency started to being adopted (Fourier and Laplace transforms and spectrum analyzers).
Not even QM developers, in the 1920's, were aware of such possibilities to analyze TRANSIENT SIGNALS, their
frequency spectrum or their mathematical representation. By late 1940's and on, such theories were of common
use by engineers, physicists and others in many different sciences.
So, going back to point 1: Read my OP, visit the industrial site (which is based on photonics) and analyze my
proposal to equate Maxwell with Planck-Einstein: EM bursts vs. corpuscles (photons), and have some reflexive
thoughts about how come we live, even today, with such a duality (which I consider a mistake).
I think that such a short burst of energy can do the same job as the photon, when we go down to infinitesimal
quantities and the quantum world.
Now, give it a try or shut up. Don't answer this in anger.
Michael Moroney
Aug 13, 2021, 3:25:30 PM8/13/21
to
[]
> I see that you do not understand photons at all.
>
> And you apparently are unaware of single-photon detectors, as well as
> photon counters.
>
E*nst**n discovered that Planck's quantization of energy was real
photons, so Richards' idée fixe against him screams "WRONG!!! IT'S WRONG!!!"
> I see that you do not understand photons at all.
>
> And you apparently are unaware of single-photon detectors, as well as
> photon counters.
>
photons, so Richards' idée fixe against him screams "WRONG!!! IT'S WRONG!!!"
mitchr...@gmail.com
Aug 13, 2021, 3:37:21 PM8/13/21
to
have to be quantized at the infinitely small point.
Einstein chose the opposite from his Nobel prize.
in 1937. Science did not want to go along.
Dono.
Aug 13, 2021, 3:39:24 PM8/13/21
to
> I strongly believe that what's is called "a photon" is a burst of single and pure EM ray, with discrete duration.
>
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Aug 13, 2021, 3:50:57 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I think that such a short burst of energy can do the same job as the photon, when we go down to infinitesimal
> quantities and the quantum world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments#Bubble_paradox
> I think that such a short burst of energy can do the same job as the photon, when we go down to infinitesimal
> quantities and the quantum world.
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 3:55:53 PM8/13/21
to
We all are indoctrinated, since childhood, to SEE waves as they are drawn in a picture.
We all were educated in the same way about longitudinal waves (like in a rope) that
travel along it or the pictorial representation of transversal EM waves (mixing 2D with 3D)
with the manifestation of oscillations of E and H fields drawn along several wavelengths.
But such representations of EM waves have just poisoned our way of thinking about them
and, as often happens with other assumed things, we don't think about it any further.
Now, and this is a KEY POINT: We are used to see EM waves, on 3D perspective, as an infinite
pared of sinusoidal wavelengths, which run very far in the past up to the present time. And here
is the root of all evils in such conception:
MOST people, if not all, FORGET the true definition of an EM wave in space and time:
--> It is a SELF propelled, with SELF oscillating E and H fields (in quadrature) and transversal
to the direction of propagation that moves at a speed "c" in the vacuum.
It can be described by E(x, y, z, t) + i.H(x, y, z, t)
--> At an arbitrary spatial and temporal position, like (0, 0, 0, 0), it is an spatial POINT (exactly one point or particle?).
The values of E(0, 0, 0, 0) + i.H(0, 0, 0, 0) exist only in other additional dimensions, for E and H, but nothing visible
oscillates in the Cartesian (x, y, z, t) space time. Being watched carefully, a single (unique) ray of light would be exactly
a dimensionless point that travels at "c". And that is a maxwellian photon.
--> The current understanding of an EM wave (3D) is based on PRESENT and PAST oscillations in the E and H additional
spaces, but nothing MOVES in the material (x, y, z, t) world, except a point at 300,000 Km/sec.
If you want to get a very grotesque idea of what I mean, watch in YT how the advisors of the original Star Trek, in the '60s,
brought to the screen the brilliant idea of the photon torpedo, which was made to have transversal oscillations while leaves
the Enterprise. Of course, it was a poetical license, but the series had science advisors, many of them scyfi writers.
Then, there is a point-like entity traveling the space at "c" in Maxwell's world. But they don't oscillates in the REAL space.
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 4:09:14 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 4:39:24 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> No one gives a shit about what you believe, crank.
No one maybe, but you are nobody, nasty piece of shit.
Biological entity's mutations like you should post only at tmz site,
where people who post there are at the same intellectual level as you,
and even higher big time.
https://www.tmz.com/
Keep eating your soup of bilis, puke and shit. It has proteins for you to survive, slug.
Dono.
Aug 13, 2021, 4:14:00 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:09:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 4:39:24 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > No one gives a shit about what you believe, crank.
> No one maybe,
No one, FOR SURE. When you die all that is going to be left of you is the imbecilities you posted. You are a disgrace for your family in specific and for the Argentinian Jewish community in general. A disgusting kapo.
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 4:39:24 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > No one gives a shit about what you believe, crank.
> No one maybe,
Odd Bodkin
Aug 13, 2021, 5:23:34 PM8/13/21
to
Lasers, like what the company you cited produce, do make zillions of
photons. There are lots of applications where SINGLE photons are produced
or small numbers are produced. One simple example I might offer is PET
scanners. E706 at Fermilab was a direct photon experiment where collisions
produced a SINGLE photon, which was then detected in a liquid argon
calorimeter. I elected to point out to you that counting photons one at a
time is a very real application and there are devices for sale today that
are built to do that.
As for the photon calculator. I can do that myself, thank you. The formulas
are very simple.
>
> Give me some credit this time, and take time to read it through.
>
> Specially in the first few lines, where I post a link of A COMPANY, which sells instruments
> for the INDUSTRY, specially PHOTON GENERATORS (a serious matter) to be used by other
> companies in their labs or assembly lines, or for medical sciences.
>
> Visit the place, and also test the Photon Calculator that the company has put in there, and
> also continue to learn about what I intended to do with maxwellian and planckian photons.
>
> Don't be stubborn. I wrote the OP with nothing but seriousness (and doubts) in my mind.
>
>
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 7:49:46 PM8/13/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 6:23:34 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> I do choose what to respond to.
I never asked you to respond, just to read my OP. Nothing else. I wasn't expecting any reply at all, but thanks for it.
> Lasers, like what the company you cited produce, do make zillions of
> photons. There are lots of applications where SINGLE photons are produced
> or small numbers are produced. One simple example I might offer is PET
> scanners. E706 at Fermilab was a direct photon experiment where collisions
> produced a SINGLE photon, which was then detected in a liquid argon
> calorimeter. I elected to point out to you that counting photons one at a
> time is a very real application and there are devices for sale today that
> are built to do that.
I knew about PET in the bad way, due to a fatal disease in my family. I study it
and the results, which brought me deeply into the surrounding theory, as I wanted
to understand how accurate was it (and it was).
Regarding the experiment that you mention, Fermilab E706, I wasn't aware of it.
Now that I read a few papers in the last hours, I know that it was initiated in 1988.
I quote from this one:
https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-8/8e650aefc5d5461eb4c55f724bf70717
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Neutral Pion and Direct Photon Results
"A single photon was defined as any electromagnetic shower in the EMLAC, which WAS
NOT part of a Pion_0 or an Eta meson (with A < 0.75)."
..
"The main background for the direct photons was due to two-photon decays of Pion_0 and
Eta mesons which were not identified as such."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis behind this experiment is the theory about SINGLE PHOTONS which are not part
of the process of pair production of photons in the decay of neutral pions and eta mesons.
They appear as a residual from the shower of pair of photons, and have "alleged" single come into
existence, without its symmetric partner, as in two photons decay.
But the Fermilab E706 wasn't designed to find ONE UNIQUE PHOTON, which has been proven to
be an impossible task as of today. It was designed to find (by statistical analysis of huge amount of data)
Single Photons (as defined above), but it means A LOT of this kind of photons in the shower of photons,
based on indirect measurements of momentum and cross-sections.
I quote from this very recent paper, from chinese scientists:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/70329
Optical Chirality and Single-Photon Isolation
By Lei Tang and Keyu Xia
Submitted: July 14th 2019Reviewed: November 3rd 2019Published: December 3rd 2019
"Single-photon isolation, the quantum counterpart of optical isolation, is the key functional component in
quantum information processing, but its realization is challenging."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be offended. Of course they are elementary. I just wanted to be supportive
about photonic theories. I presented just one company devoted to photonics, wich
is a very large industry, mainly developed around early fiber optics and CCD designs
and implementations. Photonics has built a multi-billion USD industry.
At any case, what you wrote is not related to these modern experiments and technologies
but to a possible marriage between both theories in the earlied decades of XX century.
I explained to Raemsch how come scientists didn't have the proper math tools and instruments
to re-explain earlier advances in quantum physics, as they appeared and solidified by mid '20s
and so on. Today, you can buy a spectrum analyzer online and read (also online) basic theories
of electrical circuits with modern (and easy to understand) applied mathematics (Fourier and Laplace
transforms, Heaviside echelons and Dirac impulses, transfer functions H(f) or H(s) for black boxes, etc.
<snip>
> I do choose what to respond to.
> Lasers, like what the company you cited produce, do make zillions of
> photons. There are lots of applications where SINGLE photons are produced
> or small numbers are produced. One simple example I might offer is PET
> scanners. E706 at Fermilab was a direct photon experiment where collisions
> produced a SINGLE photon, which was then detected in a liquid argon
> calorimeter. I elected to point out to you that counting photons one at a
> time is a very real application and there are devices for sale today that
> are built to do that.
and the results, which brought me deeply into the surrounding theory, as I wanted
to understand how accurate was it (and it was).
Regarding the experiment that you mention, Fermilab E706, I wasn't aware of it.
Now that I read a few papers in the last hours, I know that it was initiated in 1988.
I quote from this one:
https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-8/8e650aefc5d5461eb4c55f724bf70717
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Neutral Pion and Direct Photon Results
"A single photon was defined as any electromagnetic shower in the EMLAC, which WAS
NOT part of a Pion_0 or an Eta meson (with A < 0.75)."
..
"The main background for the direct photons was due to two-photon decays of Pion_0 and
Eta mesons which were not identified as such."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis behind this experiment is the theory about SINGLE PHOTONS which are not part
of the process of pair production of photons in the decay of neutral pions and eta mesons.
They appear as a residual from the shower of pair of photons, and have "alleged" single come into
existence, without its symmetric partner, as in two photons decay.
But the Fermilab E706 wasn't designed to find ONE UNIQUE PHOTON, which has been proven to
be an impossible task as of today. It was designed to find (by statistical analysis of huge amount of data)
Single Photons (as defined above), but it means A LOT of this kind of photons in the shower of photons,
based on indirect measurements of momentum and cross-sections.
I quote from this very recent paper, from chinese scientists:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/70329
Optical Chirality and Single-Photon Isolation
By Lei Tang and Keyu Xia
Submitted: July 14th 2019Reviewed: November 3rd 2019Published: December 3rd 2019
"Single-photon isolation, the quantum counterpart of optical isolation, is the key functional component in
quantum information processing, but its realization is challenging."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be offended. Of course they are elementary. I just wanted to be supportive
about photonic theories. I presented just one company devoted to photonics, wich
is a very large industry, mainly developed around early fiber optics and CCD designs
and implementations. Photonics has built a multi-billion USD industry.
At any case, what you wrote is not related to these modern experiments and technologies
but to a possible marriage between both theories in the earlied decades of XX century.
I explained to Raemsch how come scientists didn't have the proper math tools and instruments
to re-explain earlier advances in quantum physics, as they appeared and solidified by mid '20s
and so on. Today, you can buy a spectrum analyzer online and read (also online) basic theories
of electrical circuits with modern (and easy to understand) applied mathematics (Fourier and Laplace
transforms, Heaviside echelons and Dirac impulses, transfer functions H(f) or H(s) for black boxes, etc.
Richard Hertz
Aug 13, 2021, 8:05:43 PM8/13/21
to
And I forgot to add:
Current industry of telecommunications uses, on fiber optics links of any kind (short or long range) BOTH
THEORIES, as it fits for simplicity: Maxwell's waves for propagation and Planck's quantas for regeneration,
like in the EDFA (Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifier). Both theories, along with theories for development of very
low loss fiber optics, allow transcontinental links with Terabits/sec and repeaters distance 1,000 Km (underseas).
20 Tbps and 4,104 miles across the Atlantic
https://www.popsci.com/submarine-cable-data-transfer-record/
Current industry of telecommunications uses, on fiber optics links of any kind (short or long range) BOTH
THEORIES, as it fits for simplicity: Maxwell's waves for propagation and Planck's quantas for regeneration,
like in the EDFA (Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifier). Both theories, along with theories for development of very
low loss fiber optics, allow transcontinental links with Terabits/sec and repeaters distance 1,000 Km (underseas).
20 Tbps and 4,104 miles across the Atlantic
https://www.popsci.com/submarine-cable-data-transfer-record/
Ken Seto
Aug 18, 2021, 1:29:32 PM8/18/21
to
0 new messages