Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons

Jun 11, 2013
Top: The TES package contains the sensor (about one-fourth the width of a human hair) at the center of the circular section. Bottom: A wafer with multiple sensor package substrates.

(Phys.org) —An international team of researchers has reached a milestone in experimental confirmation of a key tenet of quantum mechanics, using ultra-sensitive photon detectors devised by PML scientists.

The work, reported last month in Nature, eliminates the last remaining potential obstacle to a quantum-mechanical interpretation of results from observations of pairs of "entangled" photons. is an exclusively quantum, non-classical phenomenon in which the properties of each photon in the pair are intrinsically correlated – no matter how far they are separated in space – but unknowable prior to the act of measurement.

, among others, did not believe that was a complete description of nature, and argued that presumably actually have inherent properties which are somehow hidden but which exist before measurement. This view has come to be known as "local realism."

In the 1960s, Irish physicist John Bell formulated a definitive test for entanglement, showing that if local realism is true, there are mathematical limits on the between different measurements performed on the particles. If those constraints are exceeded, then the entangled particles are obeying purely quantum-mechanical rules.

In the years since, many "Bell tests" have been performed, but critics have identified several conditions (known as loopholes) in which the results could be considered inconclusive. For entangled photons, there have been three major loopholes; two were closed by previous experiments. The remaining problem, known as the "detection-efficiency/fair sampling loophole," results from the fact that, until now, the detectors employed in experiments have captured an insufficiently large fraction of the photons, and the have been insufficiently efficient. The validity of such experiments is thus dependent on the assumption that the detected photons are a statistically fair sample of all the photons. That, in turn, leaves open the possibility that, if all the photon data were known, they could be described by local realism.

The new research, conducted at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Communication in Austria, closes the fair-sampling loophole by using improved photon sources (spontaneous parametric down-conversion in a Sagnac configuration) and ultra-sensitive detectors provided by the Single Photonics and Quantum Information project in PML's Quantum Electronics and Photonics Division. That combination, the researchers write, was "crucial for achieving a sufficiently high collection efficiency," resulting in a high-accuracy data set – requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.

Diagram of the TES sensor and immediate connections.

The photon detectors are transition-edge sensors (TESs), a design that provides single-photon detection efficiencies as high as 98%. Each unit, about 25 µm x 25 µm, contains a tungsten film 20 nm thick that is kept at a temperature (about 100 mK) right at the transition between the superconducting state and normal resistance. A small bias voltage is applied across the sensor. When an incident photon from a coupled optical fiber deposits energy in the tungsten film, the temperature rises, the resistance of the tungsten increases substantially, and the resulting current drop signals detection.

Not only are TES detectors highly efficient, but they are intrinsically free of spurious "dark counts" – detection signals that occur when no photon is present. "This combination," the researchers note, "is imperative for an experiment in which no correction of count rates can be tolerated."

For the experiment, Sae Woo Nam, project leader for Single Photonics and Quantum Information, and colleagues provided a set of TES detectors optimized for the 810 nm photons produced by the source. Each was carefully constructed to minimize losses that can result from packaging and source-to-detector fiber coupling. "Our packaging is one of the key enabling technologies that make the experiment possible," Nam says.

Another is the absence of dark counts. "In a test of local realism, the margin for error is very small." Nam says. "You can't correct for any errors because you can't be sure that whether it is truly an error or 'reality.' Only detectors such as the TES, which essentially have no intrinsic dark counts, can be used for the types of experiments that have been conducted to date with entangled photons."

The work was particularly demanding for the PML team in Boulder, Co because all the experiments were conducted in Vienna, Austria.

"The most challenging part of our role was the remote distance and waiting," Nam says. "We had some very nice results as early as November, 2010. However, reproducing the results after our initial work has been demanding because of changes in experimental apparatus in Vienna.

"In addition, the cryogenic systems for our TES detectors were from the European scientists, as opposed to systems that we have built and tested at NIST. Getting these new systems working without touching them has been a challenge for everyone."

If recent successes are predictive of the future, PML's TES technology will continue to provide state-of-the-art capabilities to numerous other experiments and research projects.

"The single- developed by the NIST team have proven to be a game-changer for the quantum information research community around the world," says Robert Hickernell, Acting Chief of the Quantum Electronics and Photonics Division. "Many major research groups in the quantum optics field now rely on NIST's detectors, based on their record efficiency and superior cryogenics and packaging, for seminal results such as this closing of the fair-sampling ."

Explore further: 'Cavity protection effect' helps to conserve quantum information

More information: www.nature.com/nature/journal/… ull/nature12012.html

Related Stories

Hi-fi single photons

Oct 04, 2012

Many quantum technologies—such as cryptography, quantum computing and quantum networks—hinge on the use of single photons. While she was at the Kastler Brossel Laboratory (affiliated with the Pierre and Marie Curie University, ...

Lab sets a new record for creating heralded photons

May 20, 2013

(Phys.org) —Entanglement, by general consensus of physicists, is the weirdest part of quantum science. To say that two particles, A and B, are entangled means that they are actually two parts of an inseparable ...

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past

Apr 23, 2012

Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), the University of Vienna, and the Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) ...

Recommended for you

Water window imaging opportunity

12 hours ago

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 109

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

collinization
5 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2013
70 sigma? Damn, it's not every day you see something that certain.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (19) Jun 11, 2013
The work, reported last month in Nature, eliminates the last remaining potential obstacle to a quantum-mechanical interpretation of results from observations of pairs of "entangled" photons. Entanglement is an exclusively quantum, non-classical phenomenon in which the properties of each photon in the pair are intrinsically correlated – no matter how far they are separated in space – but unknowable prior to the act of measurement……

So the remaining problem (for ones who believe the entanglement) is how does it work? But for someone who thought that this seems to be a magic, maybe it is more reasonable to reconsider that the experiment test using Bell mathematical limits is not the right tool….
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2013
70 sigma? Damn, it's not every day you see something that certain.

I'm gonna go out on a limb, here, and call that statistically significant ;)
Pressure2
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2013
Einstein was right then and still is correct. This article doesn't offer any proof of entangled photons let alone close the last hole. The only thing it has to offer is a good detector of a certain frequency at photon quantities of electromagnetic radiation.
Tektrix
5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
Whether you think it is all bunk or not is irrelevant- a 70 sigma level of certainty is an unequivocal confirmation of observed reality. QT predicts the behavior of nature with what is practically speaking, unerring accuracy. We will continue to exploit QT to progress technology, just as we have been doing for over a 100 years. You can trivialize this work as you wish but the fact remains, QT is very, very good at predicting reality at the very small scales and can now be said to have no hidden variables where entanglement is concerned.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
Ahh, once again, the comment section comes down to "reasonable" folks VS "Established Science is a giant confidence scam" paranoid delusional folks.

Carefull what you post, program PRISM is watching you!!!! Better be sure to connect your VPN and don your tinfoil hats before you bash the establishment! /sarcasm

gwrede
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
Carefull what you post, program PRISM is watching you!!!! Better be sure to connect your VPN and don your tinfoil hats before you bash the establishment!
Problem is, we don't know on which side the NSA guys are.
beleg
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2013
The King is dead! Long live the King!
http://en.wikiped...he_King.

The last irreducible part of information knees before nature and is knighted: sir randomness.
No obstacle for intrinsic correlation. Certainty about uncertainty.

Off with their heads! Heretical disbelieving lot. lol
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2013
So if I crack an egg in half and give half the shell to an assistant who transports it to some unknown location, I can measure the half of shell which I retained and know instantly and certainly the jagged contour of the shell taken away.

wrt QT, why is that a bad analogy? The egg's not real?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2013
entangled particles do not need to exist in the same location to become entangled. An entangled particle is not half of a particle, both particles are whole, separate particles.

A better analogy would be taking consecutive eggs laid by the same chicken (chicken = device that initiates the entangled state) and secreting one away with the assistant. Then you crack your egg in half and measure the jagged edge. With that information you now know exactly how the other egg will crack if and when your assistant cracks it.
rah
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2013
So what was the experiment?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2013
Ahh, once again, the comment section comes down to "reasonable" folks VS "Established Science is a giant confidence scam" paranoid delusional folks.

Carefull what you post, program PRISM is watching you!!!! Better be sure to connect your VPN and don your tinfoil hats before you bash the establishment! /sarcasm


Are you referring to Einstein as being paranoid and delusional? It is you who believe there is anything to this entanglement that are the ones being delusional and gullible. In short duped.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2013
So what was the experiment?


The experiment was just a distraction to keep the gullible duped.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
"entangled particles do not need to exist in the same location to become entangled"

Didn't mean to imply that as the shell's not all in a single location - it was meant to represent the particles and entanglementent interaction as a whole system, a single wavefunction. When exactly does entanglement begin and end?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
It does not have a beginning or an ending because it never exist in the first place. They are what they are from the moment they are created. It is just like splitting a coin in half and tossing each half in a different direction. When you find one you instantly know what the other half is. The inherent properties are not even hidden they could easily be traced back to the moment they were created just like in the coin anology.

Quoter from article:
"Albert Einstein, among others, did not believe that was a complete description of nature, and argued that presumably entangled particles actually have inherent properties which are somehow hidden but which exist before measurement. This view has come to be known as "local realism."

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
Quoter from article:
"Albert Einstein, among others, did not believe that was a complete description of nature, and argued that presumably entangled particles actually have inherent properties which are somehow hidden but which exist before measurement. This view has come to be known as "local realism."


And it appears Einstein was wrong, eh? (Psssst, ya realize that ya won't ever find a single man of science, throughout all of recorded history, that didn't get a thing or two wrong?)

And if dear old Albert was around today, he would tell ya himself,,, "70 Sigma would indicate I was probably wrong." That's why the Einsteins of the world are brilliant, and the cranks, crackpots and trolls, are fools.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
So the remaining problem (for ones who believe the entanglement) is how does it work? But for someone who thought that this seems to be a magic, maybe it is more reasonable to reconsider that the experiment test using Bell mathematical limits is not the right tool….


Uh, vacuum crank guy,,,,, we are not talking "bell curves" here, it's a thing that John Bell proposed in the 60's in response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment,,,, if ya are going to post your crackpottery,,,, try to keep up. (Read up on the E-P-R thought experiment, and John Bell's posited test.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
Quote from article: "That combination, the researchers write, was "crucial for achieving a sufficiently high collection efficiency," resulting in a high-accuracy data set – requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations."

To bad they are not even talking about using entangled photons here. No where in the article does it state they are working entangled photon. They are referring to collection rates and then use that to "confirm" entanglement, sorry the two are entirely different things. The 70 standard deviation rate is referring to their detection rate. It is the usual double talking nonsense one finds in all these entanglement articles. So ya drinking the kool-ade too?

LarryD
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2013
Y'know, when I was a kid...long time ago...people used to ask about the eye of a needle; I wonder what those people would say about '...Each unit, about 25 µm x 25 µm, contains...' Wow, tecnology has even outpaced our questions!
'Another is the absence of dark counts. "In a test of local realism, the margin for error is very small." Nam says. "You can't correct for any errors because you can't be sure that whether it is truly an error or 'reality.' Only detectors such as the TES, which essentially have no intrinsic dark counts, can be used for the types of experiments that have been conducted to date with entangled photons."
That's a good bit of...English?! "you can't...because you can't..." Maybe 'local realism' is both an 'error' and 'reality'. Aristotle would have loved this ha!

Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
Carefull what you post, program PRISM is watching you!!!! Better be sure to connect your VPN and don your tinfoil hats before you bash the establishment!
Problem is, we don't know on which side the NSA guys are.

Some irony there, in the context of entanglement and spooky action at a distance.

Back on topic, Arthur Fine showed that any theory satisfying the inequalities can be modeled by a local hidden variable theory.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2013
The interesting thing about realism, which is testable in every mechanics theory as "constrained reaction on constrained action" (action-reaction outside of QM, observation-observable within), i.e. repeatable observation, is classically factual, as well as on existence level of measured particles. It is local realism of momentum et cetera which isn't.

OTOH decoherence is now observed if you divide a pure quantum system, so the "entropy" decoherence analog of Many World theory is erroneous. Realism is then a pure quantum phenomena, it isn't a consequence of having an environment (cosmological universe).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2013
@collinization: Bell test experiments are the most certain in physics, though Planck caught up on the earlier 25 sigma results as it looked at dark energy effects. (See its published results.) But nothing beats the combinatorics in biology, where the existence of a Universal Common Ancestry is a ~ 2000 sigma result! (See Theobald's work.)

@fmbrestel: Particles don't even have to exist in the same time for entanglement, a result published here last week. IIRC it can also be retrospective back in time (but it is arguable of course), published earlier this year.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2013
Why is it assumed that a single EM wave which has the energy of two separate photon-waves, consists of two separate photon-"particles"? Only after the measurement on such a wave does one have two separate photon-waves which are correlated. Before the measurement one has a SINGLE, holistic, coherent wave which is in instantaneous contact with itself within the volume it occupies.

.A laser beam is a single, holistic, coherent wave which can be split in two parts by sending it through double slits. The two parts that emerge on the other side are not each on its own a separate single, holistic, coherent wave, but are still two parts of a single holistic coherent wave which is in immediate contact with itself, even though two lobes had to form in order to move "holistically" (simultaneously) through both slits. This is the way waves act, no matter if the wave is a photon, or a laser beam. Thus wave-mechanics is not any different on the macro-scale than its is on the quantum-scale.
DonGateley
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2013
"...that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations."

Well, I guess we can say that that's that.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2013
Whether you think it is all bunk or not is irrelevant- a 70 sigma level of certainty is an unequivocal confirmation of observed reality.


The most important thing in life is life: an infinite sigma level. How's that for observed reality?

Are you now, all of the sudden, going to attempt to make sure your every thought and action agrees with this reality? If not, then the things that you say have value, a high sigma and reality, you would not be actually taking serious.

Yet, the vast majority of those discussing science here completely ignore that and destroy life for personal pleasure. Not only that, but their comments and statements are strikingly similar to a crowd of people smoking cigarettes and then saying to a person in the middle that is saying, "they are dangerous to your health", that they are, 'nuts', and not, 'viewing reality correctly', 'have strange beliefs', etc. It's a terrible state of affairs when infinite sigma is dismissed by those professing its value
DonGateley
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2013
My last comment got me to wondering what percentage of English reading people are familiar with the "that's that" idiom and what the demographics of it are.
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2013
....nothing beats the combinatorics in biology, where the existence of a Universal Common Ancestry is a ~ 2000 sigma result! (See Theobald's work.)


The most important thing in life is life is an infinite sigma. Do you agree? If not, please provide an answer without life. I'm just making sure you are not talking reality for some other untruthful agenda. Some call this, 'testing the spirit'.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2013
an infinite sigma level.

You really don't know what sigma means, do you?
It's sort of sad when people try to sound erudite by using 'big' words. But you must realize that this is a science site. Many people here have a minimum of education. And they cannot help but laugh at - and be somewhat shocked by - your (willful) lack of it.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2013
Why is it assumed that a single EM wave which has the energy of two separate photon-waves, consists of two separate photon-"particles"?
Because the single EM wave has only one crest, but the http://www.aether...air.gif, i.e. it's not a "single EM wave" anymore.
As usual a comment of a deluded ignoramus: A single wave which has the energy of two photon-waves has at least two crests. If you are a moron like YOU are you will call these crests two "particles".

A laser beam is a single, holistic, coherent wave which can be split in two parts
Of course not, a laser beam is composed of many photons which are arranged randomly within the beam.
No it is not composed of separate photons since it is a SINGLE coherent wave: It can be disentangled into separate photons when a measurement is made (for example, when it enters a metal) , but up to that point it is DOES NOT consist of separate photons.
DavidW
1.6 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2013
paraphrasing antialias_physorg ----

'It's commonsense. Commonsense should NEVER BE MENTIONED!!!'

'Commonsense reality SHOULD NOT be the root of ANY valid point'

Take a chill pill and find some humility. You are not above the truth, so stop and acknowledge that or the spirit of your comments are based on lies and have no business in any truthful discussion about anything real.

beleg
1 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2013
Trough-less and rarefaction-less 'waves' must be advanced stuff.
Below Planck's dignity.
beleg
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2013
Fourier says pretty 'pulsive. Well, Don, "that's that" are the grace notes of music.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
paraphrasing antialias_physorg ----
'It's commonsense. Commonsense should NEVER BE MENTIONED!!!'


You must have me confused with someone else.

1) I hardly ever use exclamtion marks
2) I most defintely never use multiple exclamation marks (it's the sure sign of the mentally deranged)
3) I spell 'common sense' as two words. Always.

As to whether common sense should be the root of any argument: It can be the starting point of an argument. But if it is the sole basis for an agrument then that argument is very weak (and in science such an argument - if one left it at that - would be unsupportable)

Argument has to be supported by demonstrable fact (Note the word 'demonstrable') to be of any value in science.
At the very least it has to be made in a way that can, conceivably, be tested in the future (i.e. conceivably demonstrable), which is a weaker argument, but still sort of acceptable.
Requiem
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2013
I'm gonna stick with Einstein for now and keep the opinion that God doesn't play with dice.

I believe that it's less likely that the universe is governed by some strange observer model than it is that we simply found an observer-perspectived explanation, as observers, that fits our .. wait for it .. observations(bias much?) "pretty well", before we figured out the real mechanics of it all.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
I'm gonna stick with Einstein for now and keep the opinion that God doesn't play with dice.

This does depend on an absolute causality, though.

And when you get right down to it: There's no reason why causality should be absolute.
It may be. But it's a terribly hard thing to prove.
...and as always: the one making the statement has to provide proof. Be he Einstein or not.
Requiem
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2013
Setting: First grade classroom, 2550.

Teacher: "The human race has a long history of ignorant and self-centered thought when describing their environment. We have thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the world was flat, and at one time we even thought that everybody was creating an entire universe complete with 15 billion years of history every time they gazed into the night sky."

*Cue laughter from children*
LarryD
3 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2013
Setting: First grade classroom, 2550.

Teacher: "The human race has a long history of ignorant and self-centered thought when describing their environment. We have thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, that the world was flat, and at one time we even thought that everybody was creating an entire universe complete with 15 billion years of history every time they gazed into the night sky."

*Cue laughter from children*

You sure we will still be here in 2550? 2160 comes before that!
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2013
Argument has to be supported by demonstrable fact (Note the word 'demonstrable') to be of any value in science.


The most important thing in life is life is not only 'demonstrable" and true, but it is the MOST important demonstrable truth of all.

The point I am making is when the MOST important universally observed truth is dismissed by someone they currently have a serious mental illness and they lack the ability to communicate anything of value on their own.

Even if you believed in a god, it would not be the true god that you would be believing in because you say truth isn't real, but then say there are lies are.

Your words and thoughts here are hypocritical and rooted in the spirit of deception to promote your own ego.

Your reputation is mud.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2013
antialias_physorg,

It's not like I am saying that a car is blue in a conversation about planes.

I am saying that none of the thoughts or ideas you express here are rooted in a MOST important truth.

The point IS MOST important, as long as we are alive and remains so forever.

Failure to reconcile the ALWAYS MOST IMPORTANT with your comments means that the comments must be lies and deception coming from a sick mind.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
The most important thing in life is life is not only 'demonstrable" and true, but it is the MOST important demonstrable truth of all.

Now you're going from circularreasoning to circular-circular reasoning.

Unless you start to demonstrate:
a) what life is
b) what truth is
c) what life has got to do with truth

... and all of the above on a base that doesn't require your definitions of life and truth you're not going to make any headway here.

Currently all you're saying is. "I believe that (my vague definition of) life is (my vague definition of) truth". It's nice prose - but it doesn't MEAN anything.

You CLAIM that this 'truth' is important. But a claim without anything to back it up is worthless.

I could claim to possess a unicorn. Does that make my claim somehow the basis for arguments about unicorns (or anything else for that matter)? No? Then you have just understood why your claims are pointless.

"I believe...X" just doesn't cut it.
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
Now you're going from circularreasoning to circular-circular reasoning.


I have simply stated the most important fact of life and how your words and actions do not reconcile with it,

If all you can see are circles then it is the result of your sick mind.
DavidW
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2013
I have stated that the most important thing in life is life.
I have provided the evidence in stating it with life.
I have stated the observed reality.

If you wish to contest these facts, then you must provide evidence without life to back that up.

This is not to be 'reasoned" with. It is to be accepted as the core of our reality and existence.

This is where it starts. You seem to think you can reason it away.

Your thoughts and actions ON THIS BOARD do not explicitly reconcile this MOST IMPORTANT fact of reality.

You keep going back and forth. First you argue it then you say, 'of course, it doesn't need mentioning'. Again and again and again.

Yet, you kill for personal pleasure and defend the action to kill for personal pleasure, which doesn't reconcile with our MOST important truth.

You have an illness in your brain that only the truth itself can heal.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
I have simply stated the most important fact of life and how your words and actions do not reconcile with it,

No. you have stated the most important fact of life - that you believe. But simply because you believe something doesn't make it so.
Until and unless you can argue the fact WHY you think your belief is merited it's worthless.

I have stated that the most important thing in life is life.

Circular reasoning:
http://en.wikiped...easoning

Just read up on it. You'll quickly realize that your argument carries zero information.

You seem to think you can reason it away.

You misunderstand. There is nothing to 'reason away'. Because what you have shown contains no information. Such a statement does not need to be 'reasoned away' because it already did so itself.

Yet, you kill for personal pleasure

I do? That's news to me.
Requiem
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013
Tuck your bergers in David, nobody wants to see that.
beleg
1 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2013
If all else fails force feed your hostage intravenously.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2013
It can be disentangled into separate photons when a measurement is made (for example, when it enters a metal) - but up to that point it is DOES NOT consist of separate photons
It's composed of many less or more entangled photons. After all, what the single coherent wave is supposed to be? Try to draw such a stuff at paper and you'll see.

Draw what stuff? There are not separate photons within a laser beam since separate photons are distinguishable and the rules of QM tells you that when these sub-waves entangle they are not distinguishable anymore. A single coherent wave gives you sinusoidal troughs and crests within the volume it occupies, not separate "particles".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013
Yet, you kill for personal pleasure...You have an illness in your brain that only the truth itself can heal.
I felt a dog tick crawling up my leg the other day. I squished that little bugger as I hate ticks. And I liked it.

I do not seek out ticks but they do seek me out. Defending myself from them and the diseases they carry does provide some satisfaction.
http://www.cdc.go...iseases/

-So does this make me evil dave? Jains would say that it retards my ascension into nirvana or somesuch. But jains will starve themselves to death to hasten the process and most of us would consider this practice decidedly anti-life.

All of life feeds upon life, meaning that to live is to kill. Most find this activity pleasurable as they would not do it otherwise.

Ah - I think we have stumbled upon the crux. You hate PLEASURE dont you dave? Might I suggest something to your liking?
http://en.wikiped...i/Cilice

Xians love to suffer dont they?
LarryD
5 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923, if we don't feed david with arguments like that maybe he'll go away.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2013
TheGhostofOtto1923, if we don't feed david with arguments like that maybe he'll go away.


Nothing will work. Until he TRUTHFULLY takes his last breath, and that thing which is most important to him is no more. (I think that's what is more important to him, but it's hard to tell sometimes.) But it would hurt his feelings greatly, the number of responses he baits out of people is how he judges the success of his day.
LarryD
not rated yet Jun 13, 2013
Q-Star, yeah maybe you're right. Poor fellow, I pity him losing out on all these wonderous ideas, theorems, theories etc. His choice though free will and all that ha!
That's a point. If I were 'entangled' with a twin would I have free choice or would it depend on who asked which twin first...er...does that make sense?
jsdarkdestruction
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2013
I
Yet, you kill for personal pleasure and defend the action to kill for personal pleasure, which doesn't reconcile with our MOST important truth.

You have an illness in your brain that only the truth itself can heal.

how about the truth that plants are LIVING things the same as animals? You are a killer the same as any other. what did those plants do to deserve you killing and eating them? all they want to do is soak up sun and water and nutrients and not harm anyone yet you mercilessly cut them down to feed your misguided self righteousness. .
do you use soap ever? every time you use soap you kill more creatures than you can imagine.
meBigGuy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2013

I guess johanfprins is trying to tell me that all those photons emitted to create that laser beam have merged into ?one big amorphous thingy? After all, Entangled photons are not photons? Are they just entangles then? One big beam of entangles. It's just a coincidence that they might behave like entangled photons? I didn't even realize that all photons in a laser beam were not just coherent, but completely entangled. Oh well, I should go back to school.

BTW, on another note, anyone that hasn't read about the spooky socks at http://www.scienc...er-85544 , should.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2013
That's a point. If I were 'entangled' with a twin would I have free choice
No you will not since you then do not exist as a separate DISTINGHUISABLE entity anymore.

or would it depend on who asked which twin first...er...does that make sense?

Since you are not two separate entities, another person cannot "ask which twin first". He can only ask the single entity a question and if this question disentangles the twins, they will morph from being a single entity into becoming two separate entities, each of which will after disentanglement have a free choice.
LarryD
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2013
johanfprins, so are we saying that once and entangled photon is 'counted' it then no longer depends on the other? What is it that 'breaks', the 'link' that brought both into being? Let's go back to the twins.
Although I haven't researched such things I understand a small % of identical twins do seem to act throughout their life almost as if they were one which would mean their 'entanglement' doesn't break. Is it possible that 'particle entanglement' in some form is at work here and demonstrates that entanglement might give birth to further entanglement...or am I am stretching things too far?

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2013
There are not separate photons within a laser beam since separate photons are distinguishable and the rules of QM tells you that when these sub-waves entangle they are not distinguishable anymore.
This is simplistic vision. The entangled particles are behaving like the mutually connected blobs. They're connected, yet separate. The level of separation may differ in wide extent. The lightweight particles like the photons are separated less, the heavy-weight particles, like the entangled cesium atoms within Bose-einstein condensate will still exhibit independent motion of atom nuclei. At the case of photons, their level of separation depends naturally on the photon frequency too. The heavy gamma ray photons tend to behave like individual particles more than the photons of microwaves, which are entangled completely.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2013
I guess johanfprins is trying to tell me that all those photons emitted to create that laser beam have merged into ?one big amorphous thingy?
Of course they aren't. The laser light is not even the most coherent light achievable. Actually the photons in laser light differs from photons in squeezed light just by the fact, they're not entangled mutually. Johann Prins is old chap and he isn't already able to learn this stuff.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2013
johanfprins, so are we saying that once and entangled photon is 'counted' it then no longer depends on the other?
You can only count identical photons when they are not entangled: In order to count them they must be distinguishable entities and this has NOTHING to do with being identical. Twins, triplets etc. can be identical but they are distinguishable since you can count them. After they have entangled you cannot count them anymore since they are now a single entity.

What is it that 'breaks', the 'link' that brought both into being?
I do not quite understand this question. What "link" are you talking about that "brought both into being". Photons are EM waves which are emitted by sources each of which cannot emit more and also not less energy than h*nu at a time. Although ALL sources cannot emit less energy than h*nu, there exists many sources which can emit a single coherent EM wave which has far more energy than h*nu.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2013
This DOES NOT mean that such a coherent wave exists of separate photons. I even dislike to think about such a wave as "entangled" photons since it still maintains the wrong picture that there are separate photons within such a wave. There are not separate photons within such a wave although such a wave can disentangle into separate photons when it interacts with something else.

Although I haven't researched such things I understand a small % of identical twins do seem to act throughout their life almost as if they were one which would mean their 'entanglement' doesn't break.
I would not call this "entanglement" in the same sense as two entangled photons; although there is some interesting correlations. When two photons entangle they form a single wave. Two twins are still separate entities. Even when the "two-photon" wave splits into two by passing through a double-slit, where each part has the energy of a photon, these two parts ARE NOT separate photons!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2013
I guess johanfprins is trying to tell me that all those photons emitted to create that laser beam have merged into ?one big amorphous thingy?
That is correct: The separate photons are emitted from the active lasing medium and are then "coherently-superposed" to form a SINGLE stationary wave within the laser cavity. This wave, although it formed from separate photons, does not exist of separate photons or else it will not be able to emit a coherent laser beam through the half-silvered wall.

If you get perfect "coherent-superposition" ("entanglement") within the laser cavity, you will emit a perfect unidirectional coherent wave with sinusoidal crests and troughs. The energy within such a beam is continuously distributed energy; not packets of energy each equal to h*nu.
PosterusNeticus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2013
That is correct: The separate photons are emitted from the active lasing medium and are then "coherently-superposed" to form a SINGLE stationary wave within the laser cavity.


There are resonator designs that do not form a standing wave within the cavity. There are also laser media with gain high enough to emit a laser pulse without having a resonator at all.

I know you think you're on to something, but you're not. Your position is based on incomplete information.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2013
The separate photons are emitted from the active lasing medium and are then "coherently-superposed" to form a SINGLE stationary wave within the laser cavity.
This is how coherent wave scatters. This is how real photons scatter - the individual photons still can be seen here.

Albert Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" For me it's particularly funny, when guy, who hates the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics so much adheres on its principles so obstinately, like on the concept of quantum wave collapse. You're undoubtedly most confused troll here, just face it.
PosterusNeticus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2013
That is correct: The separate photons are emitted from the active lasing medium and are then "coherently-superposed" to form a SINGLE stationary wave within the laser cavity.


There are resonator designs that do not form a standing wave within the cavity. There are also laser media with gain high enough to emit a laser pulse without having a resonator at all.

I know you think you're on to something, but you're not. Your position is based on incomplete information.


And while we're at it, let's not forget transverse modes. The TEM00 or "end of an unsharpened pencil" shape is only one of very many profiles the laser output may take. It's common for the beam to be comprised of several lobes with null points in between. Hardly compatible with your vision of a magically unified singular wave.

I'm not "picking" on you. I'm just trying to explain that your information is not complete.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2013
There are resonator designs that do not form a standing wave within the cavity.
Proof please?!
There are also laser media with gain high enough to emit a laser pulse without having a resonator at all.
They will not do this unless they do not coherently-superpose to form a single coherent wave with sinusoidal waves and crests.

I know you think you're on to something, but you're not. Your position is based on incomplete information
What incomplete information? Please enlighten me! I am always open to new information and logic: I am not a fundamentalist bigot like ValeriaT AKAK.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2013
And while we're at it, let's not forget transverse modes.
Of course there will be! So what?

The TEM00 or "end of an unsharpened pencil" shape is only one of very many profiles the laser output may take. It's common for the beam to be comprised of several lobes with null points in between. Hardly compatible with your vision of a magically unified singular wave.
I cannot see ANY incompatibility at all!

I'm not "picking" on you. I'm just trying to explain that your information is not complete.

Just a pity that you are WRONG!
PosterusNeticus
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2013
Just a pity that you are WRONG!


Everything I've told you is information you can learn for yourself from any decent laser physics textbook. If you insist on making things up then you are just another kook on physorg.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2013
I am always open to new information and logic
@johanfprins: Nope, you aren't. I already explained it here to you, that normal laser light isn't composed of entangled photons, these photons can be prepared only in brief pulses of squeezed light in solely different way. Your stupid theory cannot cover these subtleties, which everyone physicist working in this field recognizes already at all - just face it. You're pushing the physics of 30's here.
PosterusNeticus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2013
There are resonator designs that do not form a standing wave within the cavity.
Proof please?!


Koechner, "Solid State Laser Engineering" 6th edition:
"In an oscillator consisting of a ring-like resonator utilizing three or four mirrors and a nonreciprocal optical gate, a traveling wave can be generated."
"Traveling-wave oscillators have generated interest mainly as a way to eliminate spatial hole burning caused by the standing-wave distribution of the intensity in a conventional oscillator"

But even an entry-level text would confirm this:
Hecht, 1992:
"The major advantages of ring lasers come from the fact that they do not establish a standing-wave pattern like conventional laser resonators".
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2013
In an oscillator consisting of a ring-like resonator utilizing three or four mirrors and a nonreciprocal optical gate, a traveling wave can be generated."
It is not a normal travelling wave but a guided wave which is also subject to boundary conditions like any standing wave is. Such a wave is still a SINGLE wave which does not consist of separate photon-waves: Just like a standing wave it can emit a coherent wave. Have you EVER solved Maxwell's equations for EM-waves and EM-waves within wave-guides? I doubt it.

But even an entry-level text would confirm this:
Hecht, 1992:
"The major advantages of ring lasers come from the fact that they do not establish a standing-wave pattern like conventional laser resonators".
This does not change my argument one iota; namely that a perfectly coherent light-wave does not consist of separate photons; but is a SINGLE entity: If there are photons present the light-wave is not perfectly coherent.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2013
Coherence is not the only requirement for photon entanglement.
Oh YES it is. The photon itself is a coherent wave or else it will not diffract.

The light beam is not perfectly coherent from this perspective.
It is only not perfectly coherent when not all the photons have entangled to form a single coherent wave.

Can you learn new things? Just try to demonstrate it by now...
New things? You are not even able to understand established physics since it is clear that you are a person who NEVER attended any lectures on physics and mathematics at the tertiary level. I have pointed out before that with your qualifications you should clean toilets at train-stations. At least then you will do something worthwhile for humankind.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2013
Oh YES it is. The photon itself is a coherent wave or else it will not diffract
This is nonsense. Even incoherent light of Sun or incandescent bulb can diffract.
It is only not perfectly coherent when not all the photons have entangled
Negative. We can still have perfectly coherent wave without entangled photons. Please note the circular reasoning in your replies ("It is only not perfectly coherent when not all the photons..form a coherent wave."). It should serve as an indicia of logical fallacy, i.e. deeper logical problems with your reasoning.
you should clean toilets at train-stations. At least then you will do something worthwhile for humankind
Try to focus to physical problems, not to alleged personal problems of another people.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2013
Oh YES it is. The photon itself is a coherent wave or else it will not diffract
This is nonsense. Even incoherent light of Sun or incandescent bulb can diffract.
Of course it can PROVIDED it is not totally incoherent. But the diffraction pattern is more diffuse. As usual you are a MORON! PLEASE learn to solve Maxwell's equations before you keep on spouting the utter C--P you have been spouting on this forum for so many years.

Please state your competency: Have you EVER attended ANY course at a University?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2013
learn to solve Maxwell's equations before you keep on spouting the utter C--P
Maxwell's equations by itself don't lead to quantized solution, i.e. into description of quantum mechanics, photon and entangles states - it has been proven before many years.
PosterusNeticus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2013
namely that a perfectly coherent light-wave does not consist of separate photons; but is a SINGLE entity: If there are photons present the light-wave is not perfectly coherent.


And this is the crux of your fundamental misunderstanding of what a laser beam is and is not. Perhaps in some alternate universe laser light is perfectly coherent. In this universe, it is not. You will find that the coherence length is among the important parameters included in the product specifications of a laser.

In fact, you will find that the coherence length tends to decrease as the gain increases -- precisely because higher gain means more spontaneously emitted photons act as the "seeds" for triggering stimulated emission of other photons.

Your assertion that photons are not present in a laser beam is patently ridiculous for quite a lot of reasons, many of which we've already covered.
PosterusNeticus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2013
Another thing you've failed to consider or understand is that the linewidth of laser output is not infinitely narrow. Just as laser light is not perfectly coherent, it is also not perfectly monochromatic.

In other words, when measured finely enough you'll find that even a well behaved single-mode laser does not output light of exactly, precisely one wavelength. Line-broadening effects see to that. If that weren't true then chirped-pulse amplification wouldn't work.
beleg
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2013
A description you assume to be complete is fun. Even Gödel assumed this.
His work is not applicable to your assumption of completeness if and only if the process of your description is a finite process. You all abhor infinite processes. Ergo, our reality is complete.
His assumption will never take hold even if we assume any assumption we assert as complete.
Evolution is malleable. You only think you have to go through a process. :)

Toot? Don't shirk your compulsion for too long - think of your health.
LarryD
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2013
I don't want take 'sides' here, with or against johanfprins but the general trend seems to be that he is baking up the wrong tree [my words]. However, I too am an old chap (some say that johanfprins is) so I do appreciate the difficulty sometimes encountered. But I like to think that my mind is 'open to consider new things.
That being said, could confusions come from the definition of a Photon? As I understand it a photon = hf which is the smallest value that a frequency can have. Yet I also understand this in itself is not fully understood but is understood enough so that modern technology is capable of producing this hf.
As gain as I understand it, coherence of say,sunlight, can be achieved depending on how close the incidents of scattering are. Using a double slit sunlight might incoherent simply because the slits are too far apart. Constant phase difference might also be a source of confusion.....
Just trying to be helpful but perhaps too basic for you modern guys.
meBigGuy
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2013
Let's be clear johanfprins :
1. Coherence and entanglement are two distinct phenomena. A coherent beam might have no entangled photons.
2. Laser beams are coherent to different degrees spacially, temporally and spectrally. This related to correlation of the wave with itself over space, time, and phase.
3. In case you missed all the physics classes in the last 75 years, All light is photons (which also behave as waves). They call it the wave-particle duality.
4. entangled photons can be separated and are distinguishable

BTW, you gave yourself away with Maxwell's equations. They have nothing to do with this. Try solving wave equations. This starts with wave-functions, not Maxwell's fields.

It's hard for me to understand whether you think you are properly interpreting modern physics (and are woefully lost) or whether you are expressing a novel concept you have originated yourself (and are woefully lost). Either way .......
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
learn to solve Maxwell's equations before you keep on spouting the utter C--P
Maxwell's equations by itself http://en.wikiped...c_field, i.e. into description of quantum mechanics, photon and entangles states - it has been proven before many years.


WRONG! The amount of EM energy that can be emitted by a source IS determined by Maxwell's equations solved subject to the boundary-conditions of the source. A photon is an EM-wave that is emitted by a source that cannot emit more energy than h*nu. ALL sources cannot emit less than this energy! ALL that Planck's quantum is telling us is that it is impossible to construct a source that can emit less coherent EM-energy than h*nu. This simple fact has been later misconstrued for dishonest political reasons by Bohr, Heisenberg and Bohr to claim that Nature is schizophrenic: "wave-particle duality" and complementarity"! What a JOKE!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2013
[And this is the crux of your fundamental misunderstanding of what a laser beam is and is not. Perhaps in some alternate universe laser light is perfectly coherent. In this universe, it is not.
Have you ever done physics? I believe not! In physics one usually starts off to model the perfect case, and then add the perturbations later. I have NOT talked about adding the imperfections but about the concept of coherence without requiring "coherence lengths" to "doctor" up the fact that we do not live in a perfect universe. So your whole argument is a red-herring to the actual topic.

Your assertion that photons are not present in a laser beam is patently ridiculous for quite a lot of reasons, many of which we've already covered.
I did NOT stated that there may not be some separate photons within an imperfect laser beam: But MOST all the photons which formed the laser beam are not be separate entities afterwards. In fact Bose-statistics demands that this MUST be so!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
Another thing you've failed to consider or understand is that the linewidth of laser output is not infinitely narrow. Just as laser light is not perfectly coherent, it is also not perfectly monochromatic.

In other words, when measured finely enough you'll find that even a well behaved single-mode laser does not output light of exactly, precisely one wavelength. Line-broadening effects see to that. If that weren't true then chirped-pulse amplification wouldn't work.


II have already answered these red-herring arguments of yours, just above!
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
That being said, could confusions come from the definition of a Photon? As I understand it a photon = hf which is the smallest value that a frequency can have.
Not the frequency but the energy of a coherent wave with that frequency cannot be less than hf.

Yet I also understand this in itself is not fully understood but is understood enough so that modern technology is capable of producing this hf.
Yes modern technology proves that you must have a special isolated source which can be tuned to emit a single photon-wave at a time. Modern technology also knows that only certain sources emits "two" entangled photons. But the modern theoretical physicists cannot get it through their boneheads that the latter wave is NOT two separate photons but according to Maxwell's equations (ME) it is a single coherent wave which consists of a single distributed coherent energy equal to 2*h*f.

The differential wave equations of quantum mechanics are ME.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2013
Let's be clear johanfprins :
1. Coherence and entanglement are two distinct phenomena. A coherent beam might have no entangled photons.
WRONG!!
2. Laser beams are coherent to different degrees spacially, temporally and spectrally. This related to correlation of the wave with itself over space, time, and phase.
So what?
3. In case you missed all the physics classes in the last 75 years, All light is photons (which also behave as waves). They call it the wave-particle duality.
I have been taught this rubbish and have, to my shame, even taught it to my students. There is no "wave-particle".

BTW, you gave yourself away with Maxwell's equations. They have nothing to do with this. Try solving wave equations. This starts with wave-functions, not Maxwell's fields.
Maxwell's fields also cover electromagnetic waves and a photon is an EM-wave and is thus modelled by M-equations.

4. entangled photons can be separated and are distinguishable

johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
It's hard for me to understand whether you think you are properly interpreting modern physics
Yes I am trying to this since I found impeccable proof that the Copenhagen interpretation is based on Voodoo!
(and are woefully lost)
Time will prove who has been woefully lost.

You must remember that I am not an uneducated moron like Natello, ValeriaT AKAK, who is constantly posting hallucinations on this forum. I am a renowned physicist with a decent citation index` of my publications in journals like Physical Review.

And I am not the only renowned physicist who is questioning the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Another example ss Carver Mead at CALTEC, who was student of Richard Feynman and received the presidential medal in the USA for having established silicon valley. He has written a book in which he rejects the photon-interpretation of laser beams.

May I hear what is your qualifications?
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2013
I only saw this comment now
4. entangled photons can be separated and are distinguishable
Obviously when you make a measurement that splits the single wave in two parts that are INDEPENDENTLY separate you will have two INDEPENDENTLY separate photon-waves: BUT THESE TWO PARTS ARE THEN NOT ENTANGLED ANYMORE!!!!!

You can also divide it in two parts so that the two parts stay entangled, and then you do not have two separate photon-waves.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2013
I am a renowned physicist


And this is grandest venue ya can find to instruct the morons? Should we be thankful that ya would grace us with your efforts? Or sad that this all ya have to display your renown?

(I'll take the second option, and offer my condolences, it must be frustrating to ya to be reduced to an audience so lowly as a popular science article comment section.)
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2013
Should we be thankful that ya would grace us with your efforts?

We probably should be grateful...at least it keeps him from bugging real scientists with his crank theories.
I guess we're providing a valuable public service by occupying his time.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2013
I am a renowned physicist


And this is grandest venue ya can find to instruct the morons? Should we be thankful that ya would grace us with your efforts? Or sad that this all ya have to display your renown?

(I'll take the second option, and offer my condolences, it must be frustrating to ya to be reduced to an audience so lowly as a popular science article comment section.)


I NEVER classify people and am willing to talk and write on any forum about physics: Your attitude about this is the main highway to racism and Nazism. What is wrong to take part in a discussion forum even when you have nitwits like ValeriaT and you also partaking?

You are in North Carolina are you not? I thought that your type of mentality had disappeared from that state by now. After all the Civil Rights Bill was signed by LBJ in 1965, is it not? I hope for your own sake (mental health?) that you will overcome your disgraceful hang-ups about other people.

johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2013
I guess we're providing a valuable public service by occupying his time.
Yes you have been doing me a service since you are willing to parrot first-hand what the mainstream scientits expound. Some of you have even been very clever in your arguments (NOT YOU of course).
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2013
I NEVER classify people ,,,,,:


Damn me eyes boyo. Ya couldn't even finish the sentence before ya lied.

Your attitude about this is the main highway to racism and Nazism.


you have nitwits


At least ya aren't classifying anyone.

your type of mentality


Because I would certainly not like to be classified with the mentally ill.

your disgraceful hang-ups about other people.


Since ya aren't classifying me, I take that as a joke. (Actually I'll take ya as a joke.)

By the By: I know I shouldn't classify ya,,, but I'm a mere mortal, unlike ya who are in a singular class of individuals. The MOST RUDE NARCISSIST I have ever seen. (And ya really don't have much have much to say in favor of your narcissism.)

So unless ya don't want me to give ya what for, don't even think about classifying me. I appreciate the restraint ya have shown everyone so far in that respect.
PosterusNeticus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2013
Hah, called it.

Johan, you'll find available seats near the NWO nutjobs, the cold vapor electric universe vacuum fusion cleaner nutjobs, and the "chemtrails" nutjobs. You'll fit right in.

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2013
Yes you have been doing me a service since you are willing to parrot first-hand what the mainstream scientits expound.

Erm. How is that a service, since you already seem to be aware of what 'mainstream' is in your mind? You are one very confused individual...

Oh well... as long as your blood pressure is OK, that's what matters ;-)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2013
modern theoretical physicists cannot get it through their boneheads that the latter wave is NOT two separate photons but according to Maxwell's equations (ME) it is a single coherent wave
Why they're spending so lotta time and money for preparation of entangled photons, which every laser beam contains in much larger quantity by your opinion?
as long as your blood pressure is OK
Urine pressure is important here too.
LarryD
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2013
Ding Ding, final round coming up. 'renowned' vs 'the rest'. I'm going to 'wait up' for this one ha!
meBigGuy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2013
OK .... It's clear to me now. I thought maybe jp was just confused, but he is hopelessly "cranked". He's not worth the time. Sorry I engaged. He is best left to his fantasy world.

Changing the subject, I really enjoy a particular entanglement analogy. I'd be interested whether others think it is a good analogy. It frames quantum reality in a profound way that bleeds into the philosophical. Read about the spooky socks at http://www.scienc...er-85544
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2013
"cranked"

You know - that should be a TV show. Put cranks on TV and have their 'theories' demolished by facts.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
Erm. How is that a service, since you already seem to be aware of what 'mainstream' is in your mind?
I have never claimed that I fully know what mainstream is, and I am always open to hear new arguments even when they are raised by nitwits like you ValeriaT and Q-star.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
]Why they're spending so lotta time and money for preparation of http://physicswor...photons, which every laser beam contains in much larger quantity by your opinion?


A typical argument by a nitwit like you!

There are two reasons why they do it:

1. Even though they do not understand what entanglement really means, it is of technical importance to prepare single coherent waves with low energies.

2. Since the fiasko of the 1927 Solvay conference, the mainstream physicists want to believe that physics is Voodoo; by, for example, stating the following claptrap: Bohr: "Anybody who thinks he understands quantum mechanics does not understand it" . Feynman: "Physicists have given up to understand physics: Nobody understands it!" So physics has become the pursuit of doing experiments which physicists refuse to understand! No wonder mainstream QM has become THE greatest crackpot science EVER!
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
Changing the subject, I really enjoy a particular entanglement analogy. I'd be interested whether others think it is a good analogy. It frames quantum reality in a profound way that bleeds into the philosophical. Read about the spooky socks at http://www.scienc...er-85544


This is the most pathetic article I have EVER read. Einstein did NOT get it wrong since he stated that two separate "particles" cannot be in instantaneous contact with one another. So the fact that an entangled entity is in instantaneous contact with itself proves without any doubt that it is NOT two "particles". Thus contrary to what this Koelman fool wrote, John Bell helped to prove Einstein RIGHT!.

Shake an separate electron on one side of a room and another separate electron on the other side will only receive this message with the speed of light: This is an experimental fact that cannot be argued away.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2013
"cranked"

You know - that should be a TV show. Put cranks on TV and have their 'theories' demolished by facts.


Great idea! If you could arrange such a TV show I am in. I have enough facts to demolish the mainstream interpretation of QM. After all the mainstream have no facts since they have already admitted for nearly 100 years that they do not understand QM. So which facts are they going to throw at me? The superstition that mortal man is not allowed by God to understand? Does this mean that God also does not understand Nature? Or does it mean that God is playing Voodoo-games with us?
LarryD
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2013
One of the above quotes about Maxwell's equations not being used in these equations is, as I see it, not 100% true. After all when substituting the 2 'p constants for v^2 in the basic wave equation giving the propagation v, convinced Maxwell that light was an electro-magnetic 'disturbance' and obeying em laws. But then we would be talking about 'wave' and not 'particle'...wouldn't we?
However, if one is to consider a photon as a 'particle' then the em wave eq wouldn't apply and it is Schrodinger's eq that rules. psi in Sch eq is (elementary formula) Asin[(npix)/a]
which is analogous to basic physics of waves Asin(wt) and so we are in the realm of particle oscillation.
So from which side should I view lasers?
On another tack, I thought Bell's inequality helped to disprove EPR 'hidden variables' when entangled experiments showed a figure of 'less than' rather than 'equal to or greater than'
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
One of the above quotes about Maxwell's equations not being used in these equations is, as I see it, not 100% true. After all when substituting the 2 'p constants for v^2 in the basic wave equation giving the propagation v, convinced Maxwell that light was an electro-magnetic 'disturbance' and obeying em laws.
Thank you for posting some logic and sense. It is refreshing to find a person who does not contaminate this forum with illogical AWT claptrap.

Correct a photon is a wave which is modelled by Maxwell's equations: And it is a coherent wave since one has for a photon that k=(omega)/c.

But then we would be talking about 'wave' and not 'particle'...wouldn't we?
Correct: ONLY a coherent wave can diffract not a particle: In contrast, a coherent wave can move like a particle: just observe a laser-pulse moving.

it is Schrodinger's eq that rules.
Schr. eq. Eq. is a Maxwell equation for a stationary light-wave: It cannot model a freely-moving electron.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2013
In fact the wave eq. for a freely-moving electron is the same as Maxwell's equation for the electric-potential of light, but the wave is moving with a speed v smaller than light speed c. In fact the electron wave is simultaneously moving relative to different inertial reference frames with different speeds. Both this equation for moving electrons, and Schr. eq for a stationary electron-wave can be derived from Maxwell's equations via Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Therefore Scr. eq. is already commensurate with relativity. We do not need Dirac's abortion to model an electron. Furthermore, one can also derive Bohr's quantization rules from the Special Theory of Relativity, and prove that as soon as this rule applies, the electron must form a stationary wave around the nucleus of an atom. Thus, Bohr's quantization rules are also commensurate with Einstein's relativity.
LarryD
not rated yet Jun 19, 2013
Well, johanfprims, I am not a proponent of AWT, QAT and the like but I have to admit that I am no expert about it either. Because I lacked the knowledge of 'modern' AWT I bought some books about it and I have to say that while it does have some attractions there is much that I don't accept; especially where it contradicts itself…it's full of holes, literally. Having said that QM, SR, GR, EM have some things that are also difficult to accept but in general the math seem to be more, ah …coherent(?) String Theory also has some attractions (cutting edge math for example) but as you will know there is much against it. But I am a layman on all these. I have my own reasons for believing that our view of Time is incomplete (and have posted elsewhere) and think that it is closely bound to QM, SR, GR, EM; in fact I have reason to think that Maxwell's eqs are very much involved. But then who am I? Just another crank I suppose ha!

johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2013
@LarryD,

Great comments: The math is coherent for EM and SR: The interpretation of the eqs. of SR is, however, wrong. Once you corrected this, the correct equations for QM can be directly derived from the mathematics of EM and SR: These correct equations do NOT include Dirac's equation nor the Klein-Gordon equation; and also not quantum-field theory and the nonsense that has been derived from this flawed physics; like strings, loop gravity, etc.

The latter "physics" is not required, since Schroedinger's equation is already in all aspects commensurate with SR: And Bohr's L=n*(hbar) can be derived from SR. SR determines that when an electron moves, it becomes longer and develops coherent crests and troughs as defined by the de Broglie wavelength. When it moves in a circle, it also becomes circularly longer owing to SR. When its two ends meet up, the electron cannot move anymore. Its centre of mass jumps to the point around which it moves. It then forms a stationary Schr. wave.
LarryD
not rated yet Jun 20, 2013
johanfprins, thanks for the response. You may want to correct me further. I have understood that Schroedinger's equation wasn't compatible with SR due to it not being Lorentz invariant and that it was concerned with same type 'particles'. E=mc^2 of course can involve different particles, their annihilation and producing others. Perhaps you could direct me to further reading on this or perhaps a title and I could search my library...thanks
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2013
@ LarryD

The concept of Lorentz-invariance is misleading since it is based on Minkowski-space which is mathematically flawed owing to the fact that it is not a 4D-space with linearly independent coordinates. This can be seen immediately in text books since the equations used to "derive" MS postulated by dividing by zero!

The Special Theory of Relativity is totally determined by Maxwell's equations for light which are most conveniently modelled in terms of the equation for the electric-potential and the concomitant equation for the magnetic vector potential. These equations also model stationary light-waves like the ones found within as laser-cavity, and within a black-body cavity.

Schroedinger's equation for an electron models, such a light-wave and it can be easily proved by means of SR that this must be so since it is a derivative of Maxwell's equations for the electric-potential of a stationary light wave subject to the potential energy which now acts as a boundary condition.
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2013
@Larry D,

I am busy with a suite of papers in which I am deriving and mathematically proving, for example, that the energy of a solitary electron IS NOT an electric-field in space around the electron-charge, but is the electric-field within the volume of the electron which can be obtained by taking the gradient of the electron's wave-amplitude (which is its complex electric-potential) This potential is complex owing to the fact that the electron-wave, given by Schr eq. must be a stationary wave.

I am trying to publish these but the implications are so serious for the future (and the past) of physics, that I am heavily resisted. Nonetheless, everything fits together so well that I will see to it that even if I cannot publish I will leave a thick file after my death for posterity. The cracks are showing in the theoretical physics that has been pursued since 1927, and it will come tumbling down sometime in the future.

Some of these manuscripts are already available on my website
beleg
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2013
The two camps. One camp likes happy endings. The other does not.
Interpretations cater to both.
beleg
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2013
California scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94.
http://phys.org/n...eel.html