View Full Version : Re: Intensity of a Photon
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resize=yes,status=no,wi dth=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:34a4f456.0404011123.63ca6994@posting .google.com...\n> What determines it?\n>\n> What is it measured in?\n>\nWell, if a question is not ideally posed, we should try to steer it into a good\nanswer. Intensity isn\'t a good concept for a single photon. The closest answer\nis to think of energy of a single photon, not "intensity." In MKS units, energy\n"U" [to distinguish from electric field "E" I suppose] is given according to U =\nh*nu, where h is Planck\'s constant and nu is frequency. We can see the\ndifference in photon frequency and energy: higher energy photons look blue, and\nlower energy photons look red, and beyond a certain range we can\'t see them at\nall. Normally, intensity for light means either the total energy per second\n[power] emitted by a source, in watts, or on a surface, it\'s the power received\nper square meter. In full sunlight, the earth\'s surface receives up to about 2\nkW per square meter from photons of different individual energies.\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0404011123.63ca6994@posting.google.c om...
> What determines it?
>
> What is it measured in?
>
Well, if a question is not ideally posed, we should try to steer it into a good
answer. Intensity isn't a good concept for a single photon. The closest answer
is to think of energy of a single photon, not "intensity." In MKS units, energy
"U" [to distinguish from electric field "E" I suppose] is given according to U =
h*\nu, where h is Planck's constant and \nu is frequency. We can see the
difference in photon frequency and energy: higher energy photons look blue, and
lower energy photons look red, and beyond a certain range we can't see them at
all. Normally, intensity for light means either the total energy per second
[power] emitted by a source, in watts, or on a surface, it's the power received
per square meter. In full sunlight, the earth's surface receives up to about 2
kW per square meter from photons of different individual energies.
FrediFizzx
Apr7-04, 08:56 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resize=yes,status=no,wi dth=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"CCRyder" <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote in message\nnews:030420041853345987%fusioneer@directw ay.com...\n\n| energy/area, power/area are concepts dealing with the idea of\n| continuous surfaces whereas the idea of a photon as a descrete quantum\n| of energy doesn\'t mesh with the notion of an area. In other words we\n| can\'t rationally mix classical concepts with quantum concepts. I know,\n| I know, it is done all of the time but I think rather to the detriment\n| of understanding.\n|\n| The idea that a photon of a given wavelength can have an intensity that\n| varies flies in the face of the notion of discrete quanta also for the\n| photon would necessarily have to be composed of a finite number of\n| subcomponents. Then one might suppose that two photons of the same\n| given wavelength might be composed of unequal quantities of this\n| hypothetical subcomponent for such photons to have a variation in\n| \'intensity\'. But then, again, what do I know?\n\nYes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now. If say\nyou have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a certain area\nperpendicular to the photon\'s travel direction, this defines an intensity.\nHowever, photons being bosons, can occupy the same "space" as each other.\nThis would seem to indicate that the area could or would be defined by a\nsingle photon of the group of identical photons. Especially for soft\nphotons. IOW, as you take identical photons away, the area stays the same\nand when you get down to the last single photon, you still have the same\namount of area. ???\n\nFrediFizzx\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"CCRyder" <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote in message
news:030420041853345987%fusioneer@directway.com...
| energy/area, power/area are concepts dealing with the idea of
| continuous surfaces whereas the idea of a photon as a descrete quantum
| of energy doesn't mesh with the notion of an area. In other words we
| can't rationally mix classical concepts with quantum concepts. I know,
| I know, it is done all of the time but I think rather to the detriment
| of understanding.
|
| The idea that a photon of a given wavelength can have an intensity that
| varies flies in the face of the notion of discrete quanta also for the
| photon would necessarily have to be composed of a finite number of
| subcomponents. Then one might suppose that two photons of the same
| given wavelength might be composed of unequal quantities of this
| hypothetical subcomponent for such photons to have a variation in
| 'intensity'. But then, again, what do I know?
Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now. If say
you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a certain area
perpendicular to the photon's travel direction, this defines an intensity.
However, photons being bosons, can occupy the same "space" as each other.
This would seem to indicate that the area could or would be defined by a
single photon of the group of identical photons. Especially for soft
photons. IOW, as you take identical photons away, the area stays the same
and when you get down to the last single photon, you still have the same
amount of area. ???
FrediFizzx
Andrew Resnick
Apr7-04, 08:59 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resize=yes,status=no,wi dth=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In <34a4f456.0404011123.63ca6994@posting.google.com > Curious wrote:\n> What determines it?\n>\n> What is it measured in?\n\nIntensity, that is flux per steradian (photometrists) or flux per area (\neveryone else), is related to the number of photons per second.\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm\n--\nAndrew Resnick, Ph. D.\nNational Center for Microgravity Research\nNASA Glenn Research Center\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In <34a4f456.0404011123.63ca6994@posting.google.com> Curious wrote:
> What determines it?
>
> What is it measured in?
Intensity, that is flux per steradian (photometrists) or flux per area (
everyone else), is related to the number of photons per second.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph. D.
National Center for Microgravity Research
NASA Glenn Research Center
Michael Varney
Apr7-04, 09:25 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:c4pmus\\$2j2r2o\\$1@ID-185976.news.uni-berlin.de...\n> "CCRyder" <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote in message\n> news:030420041853345987%fusioneer@directway.com... \n>\n> | energy/area, power/area are concepts dealing with the idea of\n> | continuous surfaces whereas the idea of a photon as a descrete quantum\n> | of energy doesn\'t mesh with the notion of an area. In other words we\n> | can\'t rationally mix classical concepts with quantum concepts. I know,\n> | I know, it is done all of the time but I think rather to the detriment\n> | of understanding.\n> |\n> | The idea that a photon of a given wavelength can have an intensity that\n> | varies flies in the face of the notion of discrete quanta also for the\n> | photon would necessarily have to be composed of a finite number of\n> | subcomponents. Then one might suppose that two photons of the same\n> | given wavelength might be composed of unequal quantities of this\n> | hypothetical subcomponent for such photons to have a variation in\n> | \'intensity\'. But then, again, what do I know?\n>\n> Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now. If\nsay\n> you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a certain area\n> perpendicular to the photon\'s travel direction, this defines an intensity.\n> However, photons being bosons, can occupy the same "space" as each other.\n\nThe photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\nsame quantum state, which is a different thing.\n\n\n> This would seem to indicate that the area could or would be defined by a\n> single photon of the group of identical photons.\n\nIt would if your presumption of a boson\'s properties were correct. However,\nit is not.\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4pmus$2j2r2o$1@ID-185976.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "CCRyder" <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote in message
> news:030420041853345987%fusioneer@directway.com...
>
> | energy/area, power/area are concepts dealing with the idea of
> | continuous surfaces whereas the idea of a photon as a descrete quantum
> | of energy doesn't mesh with the notion of an area. In other words we
> | can't rationally mix classical concepts with quantum concepts. I know,
> | I know, it is done all of the time but I think rather to the detriment
> | of understanding.
> |
> | The idea that a photon of a given wavelength can have an intensity that
> | varies flies in the face of the notion of discrete quanta also for the
> | photon would necessarily have to be composed of a finite number of
> | subcomponents. Then one might suppose that two photons of the same
> | given wavelength might be composed of unequal quantities of this
> | hypothetical subcomponent for such photons to have a variation in
> | 'intensity'. But then, again, what do I know?
>
> Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now. If
say
> you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a certain area
> perpendicular to the photon's travel direction, this defines an intensity.
> However, photons being bosons, can occupy the same "space" as each other.
The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
same quantum state, which is a different thing.
> This would seem to indicate that the area could or would be defined by a
> single photon of the group of identical photons.
It would if your presumption of a boson's properties were correct. However,
it is not.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes\n>Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now. If say\n>you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a certain area\n>perpendicular to the photon\'s travel direction, this defines an intensity.\n>However, photons being bosons, can occupy the same "space" as each other.\n>This would seem to indicate that the area could or would be defined by a\n>single photon of the group of identical photons. Especially for soft\n>photons. IOW, as you take identical photons away, the area stays the same\n>and when you get down to the last single photon, you still have the same\n>amount of area. ???\n\nI struggled with this too. It seems (at least Others Here Who Know These\nThings say) that the number of photons in a beam is indeterminate or\nunknown. I believe the appropriate model exemplifies this.\n\n==============\nWarning: I am nothing like an expert, read with caution.\n==============\n\nTo me it suggested a different tack, which is that light is a wave\n(astonishing, I know) and the quantum aspect is primarily due to its\ninteraction with quantised objects (typically atoms).\n\nIt is a fact that two independent photon sources will interfere with\neach other and the clincher to me was that two separate heavily\nattenuated laser beams each sent through one slit of a two slit\ndiffraction apparatus still gave an interference pattern even though\nboth were so heavily attenuated that there was negligible chance of two\n\'photons\' being in the apparatus at any one time.\n\nI then consider the quantum aspect, typically line emission/absorption\nas a resonance effect where a very low level oscillating wave eventually\ntransfers/absorbs enough energy to cause an energy level jump.\n\nNote that this does NOT (as far as my limited knowledge can tell) alter\nthe physics of QM in general, I am pretty happy with the idea of\nsuperpositions, entanglement and so on which seem to me to fall very\nnaturally into a wave-like explanation. The only potential problem is\nthat I have now dispensed completely with the idea of a particle at a\npoint, after all if everything is a (extended) wave, it makes no sense\nto ask if its precisely *here*. At best one can say its mostly in a\nvolume, and then only if the volume is of the order of a wavelength, and\npreferably very many wavelengths (I suppose you could make an argument\nfor saying - say- its 50% in some volume).\n\nIn general this isn\'t a problem experimentally as measurements of\nposition are rarely (ever?) smaller than the wave that is being\ndetected. For example detecting a photon on a photographic plate means\ndetecting an *ATOM* that has absorbed a photonsworth of energy, and\natoms are pretty small, wavelengthwise. Ie its the atom you are\ndetecting, NOT the beam of photons (which is indeterminate).\n\nThis begs the question of why we have quantised *particles* with\nidentical and well defined properties (like electrons) as well as rather\nindeterminate things like photons. If my logic is to \'explain\' these\nthen I have to demand an internal mechanism that constrains their\nproperties to energy jumps/levels. That is, in essence, there must be\nsome form of oscillation. Here I have no option but to be vague and\nspeculative. My current, ad-hoc and very tentative concept is that it is\nenergy oscillating between an electric dimension and a time direction.\nPut crudely oscillating between electric field and mass. Note that just\nas an electron in an S-orbital has no angular momentum, there need be no\nreason why an electron should show an actual oscillation of (say)\nelectric field.\n\nWell, that\'s my 2c worth anyway.\nUntil someone comes along and shows me why this cannot be so.....\n\nFlying along waiting to be Shot Down In Flames ....\n\n--\nOz\nThis post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.\nDEMON address no longer in use.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> writes
>Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now. If say
>you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a certain area
>perpendicular to the photon's travel direction, this defines an intensity.
>However, photons being bosons, can occupy the same "space" as each other.
>This would seem to indicate that the area could or would be defined by a
>single photon of the group of identical photons. Especially for soft
>photons. IOW, as you take identical photons away, the area stays the same
>and when you get down to the last single photon, you still have the same
>amount of area. ???
I struggled with this too. It seems (at least Others Here Who Know These
Things say) that the number of photons in a beam is indeterminate or
unknown. I believe the appropriate model exemplifies this.
==============
Warning: I am nothing like an expert, read with caution.
==============
To me it suggested a different tack, which is that light is a wave
(astonishing, I know) and the quantum aspect is primarily due to its
interaction with quantised objects (typically atoms).
It is a fact that two independent photon sources will interfere with
each other and the clincher to me was that two separate heavily
attenuated laser beams each sent through one slit of a two slit
diffraction apparatus still gave an interference pattern even though
both were so heavily attenuated that there was negligible chance of two
'photons' being in the apparatus at any one time.
I then consider the quantum aspect, typically line emission/absorption
as a resonance effect where a very low level oscillating wave eventually
transfers/absorbs enough energy to cause an energy level jump.
Note that this does NOT (as far as my limited knowledge can tell) alter
the physics of QM in general, I am pretty happy with the idea of
superpositions, entanglement and so on which seem to me to fall very
naturally into a wave-like explanation. The only potential problem is
that I have now dispensed completely with the idea of a particle at a
point, after all if everything is a (extended) wave, it makes no sense
to ask if its precisely *here*. At best one can say its mostly in a
volume, and then only if the volume is of the order of a wavelength, and
preferably very many wavelengths (I suppose you could make an argument
for saying - say- its 50% in some volume).
In general this isn't a problem experimentally as measurements of
position are rarely (ever?) smaller than the wave that is being
detected. For example detecting a photon on a photographic plate means
detecting an *ATOM* that has absorbed a photonsworth of energy, and
atoms are pretty small, wavelengthwise. Ie its the atom you are
detecting, NOT the beam of photons (which is indeterminate).
This begs the question of why we have quantised *particles* with
identical and well defined properties (like electrons) as well as rather
indeterminate things like photons. If my logic is to 'explain' these
then I have to demand an internal mechanism that constrains their
properties to energy jumps/levels. That is, in essence, there must be
some form of oscillation. Here I have no option but to be vague and
speculative. My current, ad-hoc and very tentative concept is that it is
energy oscillating between an electric dimension and a time direction.
Put crudely oscillating between electric field and mass. Note that just
as an electron in an S-orbital has no angular momentum, there need be no
reason why an electron should show an actual oscillation of (say)
electric field.
Well, that's my 2c worth anyway.
Until someone comes along and shows me why this cannot be so.....
Flying along waiting to be Shot Down In Flames ....
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nIn article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n<varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n\n> The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\n> same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n\nNothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\nmust be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\nthat bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\nphysics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?\nFermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\nof electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\noccupy the same \'space\'.\n\nCCRyder\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
<varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
> The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
> same quantum state, which is a different thing.
Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?
Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
occupy the same 'space'.
CCRyder
Danny Ross Lunsford
Apr8-04, 05:50 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nCCRyder wrote:\n\n> In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n> <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n>\n>\n>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\n>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n>\n>\n> Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n> must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n> that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n> physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?\n> Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n> of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n> occupy the same \'space\'.\n\nIt is not even legitimate to imagine individual particles. There aren\'t\n"two bosons" the way there are say a 7-ball and an 8-ball left on the\ntable. The boson field has occupation number 2. The point is the\nsymmetry of the entire arrangement under interchange of particles and it\nis totally verified experimentally (lasers, superfluids). This can\'t be\noveremphasized - there is not only no way to imagine individual bosons\nin a collective amalgam of them, there is no point to\nit, because the very thing that describes them is symmetrical. You might\nas well try to tell two points on a circle apart.\n\n-drl\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>CCRyder wrote:
> In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
> <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.
>
>
> Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
> must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
> that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
> physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?
> Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
> of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
> occupy the same 'space'.
It is not even legitimate to imagine individual particles. There aren't
"two bosons" the way there are say a 7-ball and an 8-ball left on the
table. The boson field has occupation number 2. The point is the
symmetry of the entire arrangement under interchange of particles and it
is totally verified experimentally (lasers, superfluids). This can't be
overemphasized - there is not only no way to imagine individual bosons
in a collective amalgam of them, there is no point to
it, because the very thing that describes them is symmetrical. You might
as well try to tell two points on a circle apart.
-drl
Michael Varney
Apr8-04, 02:26 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"CCRyder" <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote in message\nnews:060420041523479025%fusioneer@directw ay.com...\n>\n>\n>\n> In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n> <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n>\n> > The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share\nthe\n> > same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n>\n> Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n> must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n> that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n> physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?\n> Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n> of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n> occupy the same \'space\'.\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22quantum+mechanics%22+basics\nhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22bosons%22\nhttp://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/atomic/bosons.html\nhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22how+to+use+google%22\nhttp://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/index.pl\nhttp://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/index.html\nhttp://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html\n\n\nStart with these links to learn what a quantum state is. If you have any\nquestion on the basics of quantum mechanics, you local university library\nhas a good selection of texts.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"CCRyder" <fusioneer@directway.com> wrote in message
news:060420041523479025%fusioneer@directway.com...
>
>
>
> In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
> <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
>
> > The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share
the
> > same quantum state, which is a different thing.
>
> Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
> must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
> that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
> physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?
> Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
> of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
> occupy the same 'space'.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22quantum+mechanics%22+basics
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22bosons%22
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/atomic/bosons.html
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22how+to+use+google%22
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/index.pl
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/index.html
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
Start with these links to learn what a quantum state is. If you have any
question on the basics of quantum mechanics, you local university library
has a good selection of texts.
p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk
Apr8-04, 02:27 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Michael Varney <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n> "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message\n>> Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now.\n>> If say you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a\n>> certain area perpendicular to the photon\'s travel direction, this\n>> defines an intensity. However, photons being bosons, can occupy the\n>> same "space" as each other.\n\n> The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can\n> share the same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n\nPhoton states consist of two parts: (a) the mode function, which is a\nnormalised solution of Maxwell\'s equations, and (b) the state of the\nquantum simple harmonic oscillator (QSHO) living inside the mode.\n\nComplicated photonic states might consist of some modes+QSHO-state\ncombinations in various superpositions and/or mixtures with other\nmode+QSHO-state combinations.\n\nThe intensity of a photon state confined to a single mode will be\ngiven by a number derived from the mode function, and then multiplied\nby the number of quanta in its QSHO state.\n\nAny two QSHO quanta from the same mode could quite reasonably be\ndescribed as occupying the same space.\n\n--\n---------------------------------+---------------------------------\nDr. Paul Kinsler\nBlackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714\nImperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org\nSW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Michael Varney <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
> "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Yes, I have been personally struggling with this for some time now.
>> If say you have a certain number of identical photons passing thru a
>> certain area perpendicular to the photon's travel direction, this
>> defines an intensity. However, photons being bosons, can occupy the
>> same "space" as each other.
> The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can
> share the same quantum state, which is a different thing.
Photon states consist of two parts: (a) the mode function, which is a
normalised solution of Maxwell's equations, and (b) the state of the
quantum simple harmonic oscillator (QSHO) living inside the mode.
Complicated photonic states might consist of some modes+QSHO-state
combinations in various superpositions and/or mixtures with other
mode+QSHO-state combinations.
The intensity of a photon state confined to a single mode will be
given by a number derived from the mode function, and then multiplied
by the number of quanta in its QSHO state.
Any two QSHO quanta from the same mode could quite reasonably be
described as occupying the same space.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:\n> In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n> <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n>\n>\n>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\n>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n>\n>\n> Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n> must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n> that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n> physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?\n> Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n> of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n> occupy the same \'space\'.\n\nThis is curious, I\'m given to understand that electrons have no\nstructure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound\non the, err, size of an electron. And then there\'s the small matter\nof Heisenberg.\n\nHow can anyone localize the exact position of two electrons to\nthe precision needed to determine that they occupy the same\nposition. And if indeed, one could do this, by what manner would\nit be determined that there are two electrons rather than one?\n\nThen again, perhaps your use of the words \'same space\' does not\ncorrespond to \'exact same position\' as I read it.\n\nRich\n\n\n> CCRyder\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:
> In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
> <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.
>
>
> Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
> must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
> that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
> physics? What experimental data confirms your beleif in this matter?
> Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
> of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
> occupy the same 'space'.
This is curious, I'm given to understand that electrons have no
structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound
on the, err, size of an electron. And then there's the small matter
of Heisenberg.
How can anyone localize the exact position of two electrons to
the precision needed to determine that they occupy the same
position. And if indeed, one could do this, by what manner would
it be determined that there are two electrons rather than one?
Then again, perhaps your use of the words 'same space' does not
correspond to 'exact same position' as I read it.
Rich
> CCRyder
CCRyder
Apr11-04, 11:44 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nIn article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich\n<someone@somewhere.com> wrote:\n\n> In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:\n> > In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n> > <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n> >\n> >\n> >>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\n> >>same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n> >\n> >\n> > Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n> > must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n> > that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n> > physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?\n> > Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n> > of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n> > occupy the same \'space\'.\n>\n> This is curious, I\'m given to understand that electrons have no\n> structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound\n> on the, err, size of an electron. And then there\'s the small matter\n> of Heisenberg.\n\nIt is *supposed* that electrons have no structure. The failure to\ndiscover a structure is not equivalent to the lack of one. If one\napplies the axiomatic idea that quanta can only have motion with\nrespect to other quanta then position with respect to a coordinate\nsystem is an absolutely inappropriate concept that perhaps only serves\nus well at the classical world and to the classical limit; and, in\nfact, the application and extrapolation of that single axiom completely\nreveals the basic reason why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle\nexists. Position is a classical concept that has been shoehorned into\na quantum world. For instance, the notion of gas pressure is\nmathematically represented as a continuous force applied to a\ncontinuous surface whereas both concepts and their mathematical\nrepresentations, we must be brave enough to acknowledge, are\ninappropriate to the quantum world.\n\n> How can anyone localize the exact position of two electrons to\n> the precision needed to determine that they occupy the same\n> position. And if indeed, one could do this, by what manner would\n> it be determined that there are two electrons rather than one?\n\nI can think of the perfect instance which I mentioned in my first post,\nCooper Pairing, where electrons are not just tightly bound but rather\nare united in such a fashion so as to produce a null motion gradient\nstructure that rapidly induces other nearby electrons to overlap in the\nsame momentum space (producing a fast cascading effect which rapidly\ninvolves the entire superconducting material sample) if not directly in\nthe same place where \'the same place\' may be identified not with\nrespect to an ordinary coordinate system but rather with the idea that\nboth electrons are exactly the same distance from every other quantum\nparticle in the universe. \'Position\' in such a quantum scheme is only\nrelational.\n\n>\n> Then again, perhaps your use of the words \'same space\' does not\n> correspond to \'exact same position\' as I read it.\n\n> Rich\n\nProbably not:-}.\n\nCCRyder\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich
<someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
> In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:
> > In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
> > <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
> >>same quantum state, which is a different thing.
> >
> >
> > Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
> > must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
> > that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
> > physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?
> > Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
> > of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
> > occupy the same 'space'.
>
> This is curious, I'm given to understand that electrons have no
> structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound
> on the, err, size of an electron. And then there's the small matter
> of Heisenberg.
It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure. The failure to
discover a structure is not equivalent to the lack of one. If one
applies the axiomatic idea that quanta can only have motion with
respect to other quanta then position with respect to a coordinate
system is an absolutely inappropriate concept that perhaps only serves
us well at the classical world and to the classical limit; and, in
fact, the application and extrapolation of that single axiom completely
reveals the basic reason why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
exists. Position is a classical concept that has been shoehorned into
a quantum world. For instance, the notion of gas pressure is
mathematically represented as a continuous force applied to a
continuous surface whereas both concepts and their mathematical
representations, we must be brave enough to acknowledge, are
inappropriate to the quantum world.
> How can anyone localize the exact position of two electrons to
> the precision needed to determine that they occupy the same
> position. And if indeed, one could do this, by what manner would
> it be determined that there are two electrons rather than one?
I can think of the perfect instance which I mentioned in my first post,
Cooper Pairing, where electrons are not just tightly bound but rather
are united in such a fashion so as to produce a null motion gradient
structure that rapidly induces other nearby electrons to overlap in the
same momentum space (producing a fast cascading effect which rapidly
involves the entire superconducting material sample) if not directly in
the same place where 'the same place' may be identified not with
respect to an ordinary coordinate system but rather with the idea that
both electrons are exactly the same distance from every other quantum
particle in the universe. 'Position' in such a quantum scheme is only
relational.
>
> Then again, perhaps your use of the words 'same space' does not
> correspond to 'exact same position' as I read it.
> Rich
Probably not:-}.
CCRyder
Arnold Neumaier
Apr13-04, 11:29 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\nCCRyder wrote:\n> In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich\n> <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:\n>\n>\n>>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:\n>>\n>>>In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n>>><varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\n>>>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n>>>must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n>>>that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n>>>physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?\n>>>Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n>>>of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n>>>occupy the same \'space\'.\n>>\n>>This is curious, I\'m given to understand that electrons have no\n>>structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound\n>>on the, err, size of an electron. And then there\'s the small matter\n>>of Heisenberg.\n>\n>\n> It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure.\n\nPhysical electros _do_ have structure. it is given by the form factor,\ncomputed to some approximation in most QFT books. Only bare electrons\nare structureless; but they are unobservable fictions of the same kind\nas virtual photons.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>CCRyder wrote:
> In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich
> <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:
>>
>>>In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
>>><varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
>>>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
>>>must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
>>>that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
>>>physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?
>>>Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
>>>of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
>>>occupy the same 'space'.
>>
>>This is curious, I'm given to understand that electrons have no
>>structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound
>>on the, err, size of an electron. And then there's the small matter
>>of Heisenberg.
>
>
> It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure.
Physical electros _do_ have structure. it is given by the form factor,
computed to some approximation in most QFT books. Only bare electrons
are structureless; but they are unobservable fictions of the same kind
as virtual photons.
Arnold Neumaier
CCRyder
Apr14-04, 03:17 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <407BE664.1010808@univie.ac.at>, Arnold Neumaier\n<Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote:\n\n> CCRyder wrote:\n> > In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich\n> > <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:\n> >\n> >\n> >>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:\n> >>\n> >>>In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n> >>><varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n> >>>\n> >>>\n> >>>\n> >>>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share\n> >>>>the\n> >>>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n> >>>\n> >>>\n> >>>Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n> >>>must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n> >>>that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n> >>>physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?\n> >>>Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n> >>>of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n> >>>occupy the same \'space\'.\n> >>\n> >>This is curious, I\'m given to understand that electrons have no\n> >>structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound\n> >>on the, err, size of an electron. And then there\'s the small matter\n> >>of Heisenberg.\n> >\n> >\n> > It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure.\n>\n> Physical electros _do_ have structure. it is given by the form factor,\n> computed to some approximation in most QFT books. Only bare electrons\n> are structureless; but they are unobservable fictions of the same kind\n> as virtual photons.\n>\n>\n> Arnold Neumaier\n\nWhat possibly could you mean by the term \'bare electrons\'? Do you\nenvision electrons as singularities? Do you conceive of electrons as\nunconnected to the rest of the universe? My lack of formal education\non these matters has me envisioning electron\'s structure as consisting\nonly of their relationships to the rest of the particles in the\nuniverse. That *is* their structure. Bear with me for a moment or at\nleast humor me. If the unit positive charge is a sink then why not\nenvision that every electron (as a source particle with the unit\nnegative charge) provides a single component of the multicomponent sink\nstructure? If there were a thousand sink particles (protons) in the\nuniverse and a thousand source particles (electrons) then each electron\nwould be connected to every proton. The unit charge of a sink type\nparticle would have 1000 subcomponents and the unit charge of a source\ntype particle would also have 1000 subcomponents. What\'s wrong with\nsuch a model? Conservation of charge is preserved. The idea of a\nsubcomponent begs the question of the meaning of such a subcomponent\nwhich seems pretty straightforward as a motion relationship which is\nalways binary in nature due to the relativity of motion. But then what\ndo I know?\n\nCCRyder\n\nantispam measure/lose the \'t\' for email.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <407BE664.1010808@univie.ac.at>, Arnold Neumaier
<Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote:
> CCRyder wrote:
> > In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich
> > <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:
> >>
> >>>In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
> >>><varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share
> >>>>the
> >>>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
> >>>must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
> >>>that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
> >>>physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?
> >>>Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
> >>>of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
> >>>occupy the same 'space'.
> >>
> >>This is curious, I'm given to understand that electrons have no
> >>structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound
> >>on the, err, size of an electron. And then there's the small matter
> >>of Heisenberg.
> >
> >
> > It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure.
>
> Physical electros _do_ have structure. it is given by the form factor,
> computed to some approximation in most QFT books. Only bare electrons
> are structureless; but they are unobservable fictions of the same kind
> as virtual photons.
>
>
> Arnold Neumaier
What possibly could you mean by the term 'bare electrons'? Do you
envision electrons as singularities? Do you conceive of electrons as
unconnected to the rest of the universe? My lack of formal education
on these matters has me envisioning electron's structure as consisting
only of their relationships to the rest of the particles in the
universe. That *is* their structure. Bear with me for a moment or at
least humor me. If the unit positive charge is a sink then why not
envision that every electron (as a source particle with the unit
negative charge) provides a single component of the multicomponent sink
structure? If there were a thousand sink particles (protons) in the
universe and a thousand source particles (electrons) then each electron
would be connected to every proton. The unit charge of a sink type
particle would have 1000 subcomponents and the unit charge of a source
type particle would also have 1000 subcomponents. What's wrong with
such a model? Conservation of charge is preserved. The idea of a
subcomponent begs the question of the meaning of such a subcomponent
which seems pretty straightforward as a motion relationship which is
always binary in nature due to the relativity of motion. But then what
do I know?
CCRyder
antispam measure/lose the 't' for email.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIn infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:\n> In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich\n> <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:\n>\n>\n>>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:\n>>\n>>>In article <z1kcc.43\\$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney\n>>><varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the\n>>>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.\n>>>\n>>>\n>>>Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we\n>>>must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea\n>>>that bosons cannot be in the same \'space\' is forbidden by what \'law\' in\n>>>physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?\n>>>Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs\n>>>of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to\n>>>occupy the same \'space\'.\n>>\n>>This is curious, I\'m given to understand that electrons have no\n>>structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound\n>>on the, err, size of an electron. And then there\'s the small matter\n>>of Heisenberg.\n>\n>\n> It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure. The failure to\n> discover a structure is not equivalent to the lack of one.\n\nGood point. But still, this is the currently available information.\n\n> If one\n> applies the axiomatic idea that quanta can only have motion with\n> respect to other quanta then position with respect to a coordinate\n> system is an absolutely inappropriate concept that perhaps only serves\n> us well at the classical world and to the classical limit; and, in\n> fact, the application and extrapolation of that single axiom completely\n> reveals the basic reason why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle\n> exists. Position is a classical concept that has been shoehorned into\n> a quantum world. For instance, the notion of gas pressure is\n> mathematically represented as a continuous force applied to a\n> continuous surface whereas both concepts and their mathematical\n> representations, we must be brave enough to acknowledge, are\n> inappropriate to the quantum world.\n\nSounds more like it\'s the wrong tool for the job than any fault with\nQM or classical gas pressure laws.\n\n>>How can anyone localize the exact position of two electrons to\n>>the precision needed to determine that they occupy the same\n>>position. And if indeed, one could do this, by what manner would\n>>it be determined that there are two electrons rather than one?\n>\n> I can think of the perfect instance which I mentioned in my first post,\n> Cooper Pairing, where electrons are not just tightly bound but rather\n> are united in such a fashion so as to produce a null motion gradient\n> structure that rapidly induces other nearby electrons to overlap in the\n> same momentum space (producing a fast cascading effect which rapidly\n> involves the entire superconducting material sample) if not directly in\n> the same place where \'the same place\' may be identified not with\n> respect to an ordinary coordinate system but rather with the idea that\n> both electrons are exactly the same distance from every other quantum\n> particle in the universe. \'Position\' in such a quantum scheme is only\n> relational.\n\nBut cooper pairs are not said to occupy the "same \'space\'" to the best\nof my knowledge. They just act in unison.\n\nSomewhat belatedly it occurred to me that there is a much stronger\nreason to question whether 2 electrons could occupy the "same \'space\'",\nelectrostatic repulsion. It\'s the strongest force shy of the nuclear\nforce, and unlike gravity it\'s not attractive (in this case). Two\nelectrons may occupy the same quantum state, but there seem to be a\nfew problems with them occupying the same space (irregardless of\ncoordinate systems or lack thereof).\n\nRich\n\n>>Then again, perhaps your use of the words \'same space\' does not\n>>correspond to \'exact same position\' as I read it.\n>\n>\n>>Rich\n>\n>\n> Probably not:-}.\n>\n> CCRyder\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:
> In article <407408D7.2010704@somewhere.com>, Rich
> <someone@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In infinite wisdom CCRyder answered:
>>
>>>In article <z1kcc.43$Ax1.50086@news.uswest.net>, Michael Varney
>>><varney@colorado_no_spam.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The photons do not occupy the same "space" as each other. The can share the
>>>>same quantum state, which is a different thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing like the air of authority to settle such arguments. Except we
>>>must be sure that it is not really the authority of air. :-). The idea
>>>that bosons cannot be in the same 'space' is forbidden by what 'law' in
>>>physics? What experimental data confirms your belief in this matter?
>>>Fermions, for example, cannot occupy the same quantum state but pairs
>>>of electrons, one spin up the other spin down appear to be able to
>>>occupy the same 'space'.
>>
>>This is curious, I'm given to understand that electrons have no
>>structure, that every new experiment sets a smaller upper bound
>>on the, err, size of an electron. And then there's the small matter
>>of Heisenberg.
>
>
> It is *supposed* that electrons have no structure. The failure to
> discover a structure is not equivalent to the lack of one.
Good point. But still, this is the currently available information.
> If one
> applies the axiomatic idea that quanta can only have motion with
> respect to other quanta then position with respect to a coordinate
> system is an absolutely inappropriate concept that perhaps only serves
> us well at the classical world and to the classical limit; and, in
> fact, the application and extrapolation of that single axiom completely
> reveals the basic reason why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
> exists. Position is a classical concept that has been shoehorned into
> a quantum world. For instance, the notion of gas pressure is
> mathematically represented as a continuous force applied to a
> continuous surface whereas both concepts and their mathematical
> representations, we must be brave enough to acknowledge, are
> inappropriate to the quantum world.
Sounds more like it's the wrong tool for the job than any fault with
QM or classical gas pressure laws.
>>How can anyone localize the exact position of two electrons to
>>the precision needed to determine that they occupy the same
>>position. And if indeed, one could do this, by what manner would
>>it be determined that there are two electrons rather than one?
>
> I can think of the perfect instance which I mentioned in my first post,
> Cooper Pairing, where electrons are not just tightly bound but rather
> are united in such a fashion so as to produce a null motion gradient
> structure that rapidly induces other nearby electrons to overlap in the
> same momentum space (producing a fast cascading effect which rapidly
> involves the entire superconducting material sample) if not directly in
> the same place where 'the same place' may be identified not with
> respect to an ordinary coordinate system but rather with the idea that
> both electrons are exactly the same distance from every other quantum
> particle in the universe. 'Position' in such a quantum scheme is only
> relational.
But cooper pairs are not said to occupy the "same 'space'" to the best
of my knowledge. They just act in unison.
Somewhat belatedly it occurred to me that there is a much stronger
reason to question whether 2 electrons could occupy the "same 'space'",
electrostatic repulsion. It's the strongest force shy of the nuclear
force, and unlike gravity it's not attractive (in this case). Two
electrons may occupy the same quantum state, but there seem to be a
few problems with them occupying the same space (irregardless of
coordinate systems or lack thereof).
Rich
>>Then again, perhaps your use of the words 'same space' does not
>>correspond to 'exact same position' as I read it.
>
>
>>Rich
>
>
> Probably not:-}.
>
> CCRyder
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.