View Full Version : [SOLVED] Einstein's thoughts on particle nature of light
<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>Hi\n\nFrom what I gather about the history of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein\ncame up with the idea of photons to explain the Photoelectric effect in\n1905....\n\nAlso he did that before DeBroglie came up with his wave/particle\nduality...\n\nMy question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of\nparticles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain\ninterference?\n\nNow, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of\nwave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while\nsuggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...\n\nSo how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about\nwave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain\ninterference..\n\nthanks\nGsax\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>Hi
From what I gather about the history of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein
came up with the idea of photons to explain the Photoelectric effect in
1905....
Also he did that before DeBroglie came up with his wave/particle
duality...
My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of
particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain
interference?
Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of
wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while
suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...
So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about
wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain
interference..
thanks
Gsax
Eugene Stefanovich
Jul14-05, 10:59 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\ngsax wrote:\n> Hi\n>\n> From what I gather about the history of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein\n> came up with the idea of photons to explain the Photoelectric effect in\n> 1905....\n>\n> Also he did that before DeBroglie came up with his wave/particle\n> duality...\n>\n> My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of\n> particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain\n> interference?\n>\n> Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of\n> wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while\n> suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...\n>\n> So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about\n> wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain\n> interference..\n\nI think Einstein understood quite well the troubles of explaining\nthe interference in the language of particles. Nevertheless, he advanced\nthe idea of photons, because it was the only plausible explanation of\nthe photoeffect.\n\nThat\'s how science is made: you solve one paradox and you boldly create\na host of others. If you insist on each step in the development of\nscience being fully logical and consistent, you probably not going to\nmove anywhere. The challenge (and beauty) of doing science is in\nfinding the right balance between rational and "crazy".\n\nRemember that before quantum mechanics physics was in complete mess.\nHeisenberg wrote about it:\n"I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours\ntill very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the\nend of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park\nI repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly\nbe as absurd as it seemed to us in those atomic experiments?"\n\nOnly thanks to controversial paradoxical ideas of Planck,\nEinstein, Bohr, DeBroglie, Heisenberg, and many others QM was\ncreated and the mess was finally cleaned up.\n\nEugene.\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>gsax wrote:
> Hi
>
> From what I gather about the history of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein
> came up with the idea of photons to explain the Photoelectric effect in
> 1905....
>
> Also he did that before DeBroglie came up with his wave/particle
> duality...
>
> My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of
> particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain
> interference?
>
> Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of
> wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while
> suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...
>
> So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about
> wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain
> interference..
I think Einstein understood quite well the troubles of explaining
the interference in the language of particles. Nevertheless, he advanced
the idea of photons, because it was the only plausible explanation of
the photoeffect.
That's how science is made: you solve one paradox and you boldly create
a host of others. If you insist on each step in the development of
science being fully logical and consistent, you probably not going to
move anywhere. The challenge (and beauty) of doing science is in
finding the right balance between rational and "crazy".
Remember that before quantum mechanics physics was in complete mess.
Heisenberg wrote about it:
"I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours
till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the
end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park
I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly
be as absurd as it seemed to us in those atomic experiments?"
Only thanks to controversial paradoxical ideas of Planck,
Einstein, Bohr, DeBroglie, Heisenberg, and many others QM was
created and the mess was finally cleaned up.
Eugene.
<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>gsax <gaurav_iitg@yahoo.com> writes\n\n>So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about\n>wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain\n>interference..\n\nCynically one might think that simply producing the right result is\nenough.\n\nConsidering there is still no really good (that is relatively simple and\nphysically clear) model of the particle-wave duality after the best part\nof 100 years, \'the right result\' was certainly the best decision.\n\nNote that light as a particle (corpsicle) goes back to newton so there\nhas always been the idea as a concept.\n\nPersonally I think all particles are soliton-like waves surfing a multi-\ndimensional universe. Just its a tad too complex to come up with the\nneat solution I would like (above). Pity ...\n\n--\nOz\nThis post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.\n\nUse oz@farmeroz.port995.com [ozacoohdb@despammed.com functions].\nBTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.\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>gsax <gaurav_iitg@yahoo.com> writes
>So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about
>wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain
>interference..
Cynically one might think that simply producing the right result is
enough.
Considering there is still no really good (that is relatively simple and
physically clear) model of the particle-wave duality after the best part
of 100 years, 'the right result' was certainly the best decision.
Note that light as a particle (corpsicle) goes back to newton so there
has always been the idea as a concept.
Personally I think all particles are soliton-like waves surfing a multi-
dimensional universe. Just its a tad too complex to come up with the
neat solution I would like (above). Pity ...
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com [ozacoohdb@despammed.com functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.
Raymond Manzoni
Jul14-05, 11:56 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>Oz wrote:\n>\n> Personally I think all particles are soliton-like waves surfing a multi-\n> dimensional universe. Just its a tad too complex to come up with the\n> neat solution I would like (above). Pity ...\n>\n\n...One day during their walk Bloch excitedly and proudly announced:\n"I now know what the space is."\nHeisenberg turned and said, "Tell me so I can know too."\nBloch, who had just finished reading Linear Vector Spaces by David\nHilbert, a famous German mathematician, proudly declared:\n"Space is a set of linear vector operations."\n\n"Nonsense," Heisenberg retorted. "Space is blue and birds fly through it"\n\n("Fifty years of Quantum mechanics," 1976)\n\nSorry but I couldn\'t refrain! :-)\nRaymond\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>Oz wrote:
>
> Personally I think all particles are soliton-like waves surfing a multi-
> dimensional universe. Just its a tad too complex to come up with the
> neat solution I would like (above). Pity ...
>
...One day during their walk Bloch excitedly and proudly announced:
"I now know what the space is."
Heisenberg turned and said, "Tell me so I can know too."
Bloch, who had just finished reading Linear Vector Spaces by David
Hilbert, a famous German mathematician, proudly declared:
"Space is a set of linear vector operations."
"Nonsense," Heisenberg retorted. "Space is blue and birds fly through it"
("Fifty years of Quantum mechanics," 1976)
Sorry but I couldn't refrain! :-)
Raymond
Cl.Massé
Jul14-05, 11:56 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>"gsax" <gaurav_iitg@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:\n1121238834.384934.15620@z14g2000cwz.googleg roups.com...\n\n> Hi\n>\n> From what I gather about the history of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein\n> came up with the idea of photons to explain the Photoelectric effect in\n> 1905....\n\n> Also he did that before DeBroglie came up with his wave/particle\n> duality...\n\nSure, since de Broglie was inspired by Einstein\'s discovery. More exactly,\nde Broglie came up with the idea that a particle like the electron could\nalso be described by a wave with a certain wavelength, called the de Broglie\nwave.\n\n> My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of\n> particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain\n> interference?\n\nHe didn\'t exactly suggested that. He suggested that light was emitted or\nabsorbed only in quanta of energy depending on the wave length. It was for\nexplaining the features of the photoelectric effect, and also gave an\nexplanation to the strange Plank\'s solution of the ultraviolet catastrophe.\n\n> Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of\n> wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while\n> suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...\n>\n> So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about\n> wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain\n> interference..\n\nWhat you wrote is an hindsight interpretation. The issues were completely\ndifferent at that time. The theory of the photon as a particle is more\nrecent (second quantization), and still discussed.\n\n--\n~~~~ clmasse on free F-country\nLiberty, Equality, Profitability.\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>"gsax" <gaurav_iitg@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1121238834.384934.15620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.c om...
> Hi
>
> From what I gather about the history of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein
> came up with the idea of photons to explain the Photoelectric effect in
> 1905....
> Also he did that before DeBroglie came up with his wave/particle
> duality...
Sure, since de Broglie was inspired by Einstein's discovery. More exactly,
de Broglie came up with the idea that a particle like the electron could
also be described by a wave with a certain wavelength, called the de Broglie
wave.
> My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of
> particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain
> interference?
He didn't exactly suggested that. He suggested that light was emitted or
absorbed only in quanta of energy depending on the wave length. It was for
explaining the features of the photoelectric effect, and also gave an
explanation to the strange Plank's solution of the ultraviolet catastrophe.
> Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of
> wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while
> suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...
>
> So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about
> wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain
> interference..
What you wrote is an hindsight interpretation. The issues were completely
different at that time. The theory of the photon as a particle is more
recent (second quantization), and still discussed.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Arnold Neumaier
Jul15-05, 10:07 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>Cl.Massé wrote:\n\n>>My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of\n>>particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain\n>>interference?\n>\n>\n> He didn\'t exactly suggested that. He suggested that light was emitted or\n> absorbed only in quanta of energy depending on the wave length. It was for\n> explaining the features of the photoelectric effect, and also gave an\n> explanation to the strange Plank\'s solution of the ultraviolet catastrophe.\n>\n>\n>>Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of\n>>wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while\n>>suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...\n>>\n>>So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about\n>>wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain\n>>interference..\n>\n>\n> What you wrote is an hindsight interpretation. The issues were completely\n> different at that time. The theory of the photon as a particle is more\n> recent (second quantization), and still discussed.\n\nFor example,\n\nhttp://www.aro.army.mil/phys/proceed.htm\ncontains a 1995 contribution by Willis E. Lamb\n(the Nobel prize winner who discovered the Lamb shift):\n\n\'\'There is no such thing as a photon. There is a quantum theory of\nradiation, and conservation laws for energy, momentum and angular\nmomentum are built into it. Only in very simple special cases, hard\nto realize in practice does it make sense to talk about photons.\n\nI have written a number of papers on the interpretation of quantum\nmechanics and the theory of radiative processes. Two of the most\nrecent of these are called\n"Suppose Newton had discovered wave mechanics" in\nAmerican Journal of Physics, March, 1984, and "Anti-Photon", to be\npublished in Applied Physics B.\'\'\n\n\nThe latter appeared in the mean time:\nW.E Lamb, Jr.,\nAnti-Photon,\nApplied Physics B 60 (1995), 77--84\nhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993STIA...9587709L\n\nBoth papers are reprinted in\nW.E Lamb, Jr.,\nThe interpretation of quantum mechanics,\nRinton Press, Princeton 2001.\n\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\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>Cl.Massé wrote:
>>My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of
>>particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain
>>interference?
>
>
> He didn't exactly suggested that. He suggested that light was emitted or
> absorbed only in quanta of energy depending on the wave length. It was for
> explaining the features of the photoelectric effect, and also gave an
> explanation to the strange Plank's solution of the ultraviolet catastrophe.
>
>
>>Now, the only way out is to know that light shows dual nature of
>>wave/particle, but that was something Einstein did not know while
>>suggesting photons as explanation for Photoelectric effect...
>>
>>So how could he suggest particle theory of light, without knowing about
>>wave/particle duality , & knowing that particle theory cant explain
>>interference..
>
>
> What you wrote is an hindsight interpretation. The issues were completely
> different at that time. The theory of the photon as a particle is more
> recent (second quantization), and still discussed.
For example,
http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/proceed.htm
contains a 1995 contribution by Willis E. Lamb
(the Nobel prize winner who discovered the Lamb shift):
''There is no such thing as a photon. There is a quantum theory of
radiation, and conservation laws for energy, momentum and angular
momentum are built into it. Only in very simple special cases, hard
to realize in practice does it make sense to talk about photons.
I have written a number of papers on the interpretation of quantum
mechanics and the theory of radiative processes. Two of the most
recent of these are called
"Suppose Newton had discovered wave mechanics" in
American Journal of Physics, March, 1984, and "Anti-Photon", to be
published in Applied Physics B.''
The latter appeared in the mean time:
W.E Lamb, Jr.,
Anti-Photon,
Applied Physics B 60 (1995), 77--84
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993STIA...9587709L
Both papers are reprinted in
W.E Lamb, Jr.,
The interpretation of quantum mechanics,
Rinton Press, Princeton 2001.
Arnold Neumaier
Eugene Stefanovich
Jul16-05, 01:35 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>\n\nArnold Neumaier wrote:\n\n>\n> http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/proceed.htm\n> contains a 1995 contribution by Willis E. Lamb\n> (the Nobel prize winner who discovered the Lamb shift):\n>\n> \'\'There is no such thing as a photon. There is a quantum theory of\n> radiation, and conservation laws for energy, momentum and angular\n> momentum are built into it. Only in very simple special cases, hard\n> to realize in practice does it make sense to talk about photons.\n\nIt\'s remarkable that Lamb addressed these words to the Workshop\non Quantum Cryptography, i.e., to people who deal with one-photon\nstates all the time. One-photon states are easily prepared/measured\nin experiment. So, Lamb\'s anti-photon ideas do not look attractive\nto me.\n\nEugene.\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>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
> http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/proceed.htm
> contains a 1995 contribution by Willis E. Lamb
> (the Nobel prize winner who discovered the Lamb shift):
>
> ''There is no such thing as a photon. There is a quantum theory of
> radiation, and conservation laws for energy, momentum and angular
> momentum are built into it. Only in very simple special cases, hard
> to realize in practice does it make sense to talk about photons.
It's remarkable that Lamb addressed these words to the Workshop
on Quantum Cryptography, i.e., to people who deal with one-photon
states all the time. One-photon states are easily prepared/measured
in experiment. So, Lamb's anti-photon ideas do not look attractive
to me.
Eugene.
Javier Bezos
Jul16-05, 01:35 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>\n"Eugene Stefanovich" <eugenev@.com>:\n> gsax wrote:\n\n> > My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of\n> > particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain\n> > interference?\n>\n> I think Einstein understood quite well the troubles of explaining\n> the interference in the language of particles. Nevertheless, he advanced\n> the idea of photons, because it was the only plausible explanation of\n> the photoeffect.\n\nSomewhere I read Einstein proposed the intensity of the\nelectromagnetical field could be interpreted as the\nprobability to find a photon to explain interference\n(yes, even before modern QM) but I\'ve been unable to\nverity that. Can someone confirm this?\n\nJavier Bezos\n-----------------------------\nhttp://www.texytipografia.com\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>"Eugene Stefanovich" <eugenev@.com>:
> gsax wrote:
> > My question is ... how did Einstein suggest that light was made up of
> > particles, while knowing that the particle theory fails to explain
> > interference?
>
> I think Einstein understood quite well the troubles of explaining
> the interference in the language of particles. Nevertheless, he advanced
> the idea of photons, because it was the only plausible explanation of
> the photoeffect.
Somewhere I read Einstein proposed the intensity of the
electromagnetical field could be interpreted as the
probability to find a photon to explain interference
(yes, even before modern QM) but I've been unable to
verity that. Can someone confirm this?
Javier Bezos
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
Arnold Neumaier
Jul17-05, 01:27 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>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:\n>\n>\n> Arnold Neumaier wrote:\n>\n>>\n>> http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/proceed.htm\n>> contains a 1995 contribution by Willis E. Lamb\n>> (the Nobel prize winner who discovered the Lamb shift):\n>>\n>> \'\'There is no such thing as a photon. There is a quantum theory of\n>> radiation, and conservation laws for energy, momentum and angular\n>> momentum are built into it. Only in very simple special cases, hard\n>> to realize in practice does it make sense to talk about photons.\n>\n>\n> It\'s remarkable that Lamb addressed these words to the Workshop\n> on Quantum Cryptography, i.e., to people who deal with one-photon\n> states all the time. One-photon states are easily prepared/measured\n> in experiment.\n\nNo. They are very hard to prepare. The first successful preparation\nis from the turn of the century, 5 years after Lamb\'s statement.\n\nB.T.H. Varcoe, S. Brattke, M. Weidinger and H. Walther,\nPreparing pure photon number states of the radiation field,\nNature 403 (2000), 743--746.\n\nEasily prepared states are coherent states, and somewhat less easily\nsqueezed states, and most experiments are done with these.\n\n\nPlease learn the state of the art before making claims.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\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>Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>
> Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.aro.army.mil/phys/proceed.htm
>> contains a 1995 contribution by Willis E. Lamb
>> (the Nobel prize winner who discovered the Lamb shift):
>>
>> ''There is no such thing as a photon. There is a quantum theory of
>> radiation, and conservation laws for energy, momentum and angular
>> momentum are built into it. Only in very simple special cases, hard
>> to realize in practice does it make sense to talk about photons.
>
>
> It's remarkable that Lamb addressed these words to the Workshop
> on Quantum Cryptography, i.e., to people who deal with one-photon
> states all the time. One-photon states are easily prepared/measured
> in experiment.
No. They are very hard to prepare. The first successful preparation
is from the turn of the century, 5 years after Lamb's statement.
B.T.H. Varcoe, S. Brattke, M. Weidinger and H. Walther,
Preparing pure photon number states of the radiation field,
Nature 403 (2000), 743--746.
Easily prepared states are coherent states, and somewhat less easily
squeezed states, and most experiments are done with these.
Please learn the state of the art before making claims.
Arnold Neumaier
Bossavit
Jul17-05, 01:27 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>The lamb paper referred to by A. Neumaier\nin this thread is\n\n"Suppose Newton had invented wave mechanics"\nWillis E. Lamb, Jr.\nAm. J. Phys. 62, 201 (1994)\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>The lamb paper referred to by A. Neumaier
in this thread is
"Suppose Newton had invented wave mechanics"
Willis E. Lamb, Jr.
Am. J. Phys. 62, 201 (1994)
<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>\nJavier Bezos:\n> Somewhere I read Einstein proposed the intensity of the\n> electromagnetical field could be interpreted as the\n> probability to find a photon to explain interference\n> (yes, even before modern QM) but I\'ve been unable to\n> verity that. Can someone confirm this?\n\nEinstein (1909) and, later, Lorentz found that\nalready in the black body radiation law appeared an\ninterference factor.\nThat was, \'in nuce\', what Einstein called, later, the\n"Gespensterfeld" (Ghost Field). According to Einstein\nit determines the probability for a light-quantum to take\na definite path. The ghost field gives the relation between\na wave field and a light-quantum, by triggering the\nelementary process of emission. The directionality of the\nelementary process is fully described by the dynamical\nproperties of the "Gespensterfeld".\nNotice that the probabilistic interpretation of \'psi\',\ndeveloped by the famous \'trio\' Born-Heisenberg-Pauli,\nhas been influenced by the idea of the "Gespensterfeld",\nas Born himself wrote, in one of his letters to Einstein.\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>Javier Bezos:
> Somewhere I read Einstein proposed the intensity of the
> electromagnetical field could be interpreted as the
> probability to find a photon to explain interference
> (yes, even before modern QM) but I've been unable to
> verity that. Can someone confirm this?
Einstein (1909) and, later, Lorentz found that
already in the black body radiation law appeared an
interference factor.
That was, 'in nuce', what Einstein called, later, the
"Gespensterfeld" (Ghost Field). According to Einstein
it determines the probability for a light-quantum to take
a definite path. The ghost field gives the relation between
a wave field and a light-quantum, by triggering the
elementary process of emission. The directionality of the
elementary process is fully described by the dynamical
properties of the "Gespensterfeld".
Notice that the probabilistic interpretation of '\psi',
developed by the famous 'trio' Born-Heisenberg-Pauli,
has been influenced by the idea of the "Gespensterfeld",
as Born himself wrote, in one of his letters to Einstein.
Eugene Stefanovich
Jul18-05, 01:00 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\nArnold Neumaier wrote:\n\n>> It\'s remarkable that Lamb addressed these words to the Workshop\n>> on Quantum Cryptography, i.e., to people who deal with one-photon\n>> states all the time. One-photon states are easily prepared/measured\n>> in experiment.\n>\n>\n> No. They are very hard to prepare. The first successful preparation\n> is from the turn of the century, 5 years after Lamb\'s statement.\n>\n> B.T.H. Varcoe, S. Brattke, M. Weidinger and H. Walther,\n> Preparing pure photon number states of the radiation field,\n> Nature 403 (2000), 743--746.\n>\n> Easily prepared states are coherent states, and somewhat less easily\n> squeezed states, and most experiments are done with these.\n\nLong before 1995 experimentalists knew how to produce\nsingle-photon states via parametric down-conversion\n(OK, these are actually states with two photons, but I don\'t\nsee any fundamental difference). They also knew how to detect\n(count) the photons one-by-one using photo-multipliers.\n\nYou can simply take a small piece of radioactive cobalt-60\nand see how individual gamma-particles are created.\n\nInterestingly, the classical continuum wave description\nof the radiation field breaks down not only at high intensities\n(where quantum effects of pair creation, etc., become important)\nThe continuum field description also breaks at low intensities.\nIn very low intesity radiation (e.g., the one passed through strong\nfilter) individual photons can be distinguished.\n\nSo, Newton/Einstein picture of light composed of particles -photons-\nis much closer to reality than the continuum wave/field picture.\nOf course, these particles do not move along trajectories, as Newton\nthought. The propagation of photons is described by quantum laws\nwhich explain all effects (diffraction, interference, ...) that\nbefore invention of QM were thought to be incompatible with\nthe corpuscular theory of light.\n\nEugene.\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>Arnold Neumaier wrote:
>> It's remarkable that Lamb addressed these words to the Workshop
>> on Quantum Cryptography, i.e., to people who deal with one-photon
>> states all the time. One-photon states are easily prepared/measured
>> in experiment.
>
>
> No. They are very hard to prepare. The first successful preparation
> is from the turn of the century, 5 years after Lamb's statement.
>
> B.T.H. Varcoe, S. Brattke, M. Weidinger and H. Walther,
> Preparing pure photon number states of the radiation field,
> Nature 403 (2000), 743--746.
>
> Easily prepared states are coherent states, and somewhat less easily
> squeezed states, and most experiments are done with these.
Long before 1995 experimentalists knew how to produce
single-photon states via parametric down-conversion
(OK, these are actually states with two photons, but I don't
see any fundamental difference). They also knew how to detect
(count) the photons one-by-one using photo-multipliers.
You can simply take a small piece of radioactive cobalt-60
and see how individual \gamma-particles are created.
Interestingly, the classical continuum wave description
of the radiation field breaks down not only at high intensities
(where quantum effects of pair creation, etc., become important)
The continuum field description also breaks at low intensities.
In very low intesity radiation (e.g., the one passed through strong
filter) individual photons can be distinguished.
So, Newton/Einstein picture of light composed of particles -photons-
is much closer to reality than the continuum wave/field picture.
Of course, these particles do not move along trajectories, as Newton
thought. The propagation of photons is described by quantum laws
which explain all effects (diffraction, interference, ...) that
before invention of QM were thought to be incompatible with
the corpuscular theory of light.
Eugene.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.