Why does decoherence not fully solve the measurement problem?

kexue
Messages
195
Reaction score
2
Why does decoherence not fully solve the measurement problem? I know that must have been discussed here before a lot, maybe someone can me direct to a earlier thread or post that explains it well?

I read some QM texts, but they mostly do not discuss decoherence. I know something with 'definite outcomes' and 'eigenspace selection' troubles the decoherence approach, but never understood what it means...

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I think it does solve it in the context of a many-worlds interpretation that doesn't throw away the Born rule (i.e. not the Everett version), but I don't know if anyone has ever really spelled out all the details.

You will probably find the discussion in Schlosshauer's book enlightening.

Also note that there is no "measurement problem" in the ensemble interpretation. The problem only exists for people who believe that QM describes reality, even at times between state preparation and measurement.

I probably won't try to elaborate much on these things, because I have found that discussions about interpretations are very time consuming, and I'm kind of busy with other things right now.
 


Where can I read how Everett version threw away the Born rule?
Because I am also thinking that Born rule is only an illusion created by consciousness (as very special moment called NOW) and is severily violated in our world (that violation is called antrophic principle).
 


Fredrik said:
I think it does solve it in the context of a many-worlds interpretation that doesn't throw away the Born rule (i.e. not the Everett version),
I essentially agree, provided that one specifies more clearly what exactly the Born rule states. Namely, if you simply accept the usual meaning of the Born rule in Copenhagen interpretation of QM, then it is questionable whether decoherence is needed to solve the measurement problem in the first place. On the other hand, if you do think that there is a measurement problem, then obviously you are not satisfied with the Copenhagen interpretation, which means that you need to rethink what the Born rule really means.
 


The "measurement problem" in the context of standard QM generally has two aspects:

1) How does a generic quantum state, which may be superposition of eigenstates of the physical property being measured, resolve itself into a single eigenstate during the measurement process, in a manner that is at least FAPP (for all practical purposes) irreversible?

2) How does the above interaction place a detection device into a "state" (i.e. definite outcome) where its value reflects the eigenvalue of the eigenstate into which the quantum state in part 1 has been resolved?

I believe that the statement "decoherence does not solve the measurement problem" means that decoherence provides a phenomenological explanation for the first point, but provides no insight into the second.
 


Yes.
So point 1 rules out collapse interpetations,
but as point 2 is not resolved we have a choice between different non-collapse interpretations.
 


I thought point 1 was the difficult bit, but point 2 follows reasonably straightforwardly. I can describe my toy model of a quantum measurement if you want (but later because I have to teach perturbation theory now!)
 


So how do you explain point 2?
 


(to peteratcam:) Let me be the first to say if you have a theory of measurement, we're all going to be really interested in it. (Would you start a new thread so we'll know where to look?)
 
Last edited:
  • #10


I make no claims at all to have 'solved' the measurement problem. All I have is a toy model which I invented (most probably rediscovered) in order to play around with the question "how do I describe the process of measurement in a fully quantum mechanical way?". In my mind, my toy answers that question to the following extent: it gives a QM mechanism for why you only measure eigenvalues, and why in doing so, you 'collapse' the system of interest into the associated eigenket of the observed operator. (All by unitary evolution of course). My toy assumes QM, so perhaps the whole thing is a bit circular.

I'll put it in a new thread then.
 
  • #11


SpectraCat said:
The "measurement problem" in the context of standard QM generally has two aspects:

1) How does a generic quantum state, which may be superposition of eigenstates of the physical property being measured, resolve itself into a single eigenstate during the measurement process, in a manner that is at least FAPP (for all practical purposes) irreversible?

This is a common description of the measurement process and I don't believe it's correct. Where do we ever see a pure eigenstate come into existence as a result of a measurement? Let a photon pass through a pinhole so it spreads out. When it hits a photographic plate, it is absorbed. It is absorbed over the whole surface of the plate and ceases to exist. It does not resolve itself into a "position eigenstate of the photon". At the same time, a silver halide crystal undergoes an irreversible phase transition. That doesn't mean the photon got concentrated at the location of the crystal. The crystal didn't need the entire energy of the photon undergo a change of state: it was in a metastable state to begin with and only needed a small distrubance.

What about the photoelectric effect, where the escaping electron did indeed need the total energy of the photon? In that case the exact point where the photoelectron leaves the metal surface is indeterminate, and you can't say the photon was concentrated at a specific location.

What about an electron going through the Stern Gerlach apparatus? It divides into two beams: that is it's "state". When it hits the detector screen the two streams jointly excite a single bound wave function within the screen; at the same time, a crystal on the surface changes state. How do we know that the newly-excited bound wave function doesn't have the same spin that the electron had BEFORE entering the SG apparatus? There is no need to think that the electron, originally in a composition of two spin states, has resolved itself into one state or the other simply because a particular crystal in one branch of the wave stream has changed color.
 
  • #12


conway said:
This is a common description of the measurement process and I don't believe it's correct. Where do we ever see a pure eigenstate come into existence as a result of a measurement? Let a photon pass through a pinhole so it spreads out. When it hits a photographic plate, it is absorbed. It is absorbed over the whole surface of the plate and ceases to exist. It does not resolve itself into a "position eigenstate of the photon". At the same time, a silver halide crystal undergoes an irreversible phase transition. That doesn't mean the photon got concentrated at the location of the crystal. The crystal didn't need the entire energy of the photon undergo a change of state: it was in a metastable state to begin with and only needed a small distrubance.

You are postulating your own interpretation there, and it requires some support. In particular, the statements:

"(the photon) is absorbed over the whole surface of the plate and ceases to exist"

and

"the crystal didn't need the entire energy of the photon undergo a change of state: it was in a metastable state to begin with and only needed a small distrubance"

cannot simply be asserted without any evidence or justification ... well I suppose they *can*, but it will be hard to convince people you are correct.

What about the photoelectric effect, where the escaping electron did indeed need the total energy of the photon? In that case the exact point where the photoelectron leaves the metal surface is indeterminate, and you can't say the photon was concentrated at a specific location.

The location of the exact point is unpredictable, but it still leaves from a single point, so I guess I don't understand your logic there ...

What about an electron going through the Stern Gerlach apparatus? It divides into two beams: that is it's "state". When it hits the detector screen the two streams jointly excite a single bound wave function within the screen; at the same time, a crystal on the surface changes state. How do we know that the newly-excited bound wave function doesn't have the same spin that the electron had BEFORE entering the SG apparatus? There is no need to think that the electron, originally in a composition of two spin states, has resolved itself into one state or the other simply because a particular crystal in one branch of the wave stream has changed color.

Here you are just wrong ... the Stern-Gerlach experiment was initially done on silver atoms ... these atoms were deposited on a glass plate, so their positions are not in doubt. The atoms clearly "resolved themselves into one state or another" when they reached the plate. Furthermore, SG experiments cannot be performed in the typical way with electrons, since they are charged particles, and the Lorentz force will overcome the interaction with the magnetic moment.
 
  • #13


SpectraCat said:
You are postulating your own interpretation there, and it requires some support. In particular, the statements:

"(the photon) is absorbed over the whole surface of the plate and ceases to exist"

and

"the crystal didn't need the entire energy of the photon undergo a change of state: it was in a metastable state to begin with and only needed a small distrubance"

cannot simply be asserted without any evidence or justification ... well I suppose they *can*, but it will be hard to convince people you are correct.

My point about ceasing to exist is simply that at no verifiable moment in time did the photon exist in anything resembling a "position eigenstate". I think I am correct in believing there is really no such thing as a position eigenstate for photons.

About thermodynamics of silver halide: again, this should be quite uncontroversial. True, I don't have a reference, but I believe I've got the arrow pointing the right way. I've never heard of anyone being able to regenerate used photographic film by gently heating it or some such method.


The location of the exact point is unpredictable, but it still leaves from a single point, so I guess I don't understand your logic there ...

I put this example in as a contrast with the phtographic plate to show that in situations where you have a verifiable amount of energy absorbed in the detection process, your position measurement can become a little vague. It's not the the location of the exact point is "unpredictable": in fact it's unmeasurable, or at least it's certainly not measured in any version of the experiment that I know of. Even your assertion that it leaves from a single point is not easily verifiable.



Here you are just wrong ... the Stern-Gerlach experiment was initially done on silver atoms ... these atoms were deposited on a glass plate, so their positions are not in doubt. The atoms clearly "resolved themselves into one state or another" when they reached the plate. Furthermore, SG experiments cannot be performed in the typical way with electrons, since they are charged particles, and the Lorentz force will overcome the interaction with the magnetic moment.

Good one. I forgot about the silver atoms. But this wasn't my example: my example was the Stern Gerlach experiment performed on electrons, and you haven't exactly dealt with it. Well, mabye you have after all, to the extent that you've challenged me to apply the same logic to silver atoms. Fair enough:

What do we actually observe in the Stern Gerlach experiment? A jet of silver effuses (learned that word from peteratcam's explanation in another thread!) from an oven, splits in two passing through a magnet, and two cloudy patches develop on a plate. All this is in accordance with the unitary time-evolution of the wave function. Where does the "collapse" occur? I know the answer: just send a single silver atom through the apparatus and watch for it to appear at one spot or the other. The problem is this is a very difficult experiment to do, and I'm not sure it's ever been done. People assume that the behavior of the bulk material can be broken down into individual atomic events. That's an assumption and it is not easy to verify experimentally.
 
  • #14
conway said:
My point about ceasing to exist is simply that at no verifiable moment in time did the photon exist in anything resembling a "position eigenstate". I think I am correct in believing there is really no such thing as a position eigenstate for photons.

About thermodynamics of silver halide: again, this should be quite uncontroversial. True, I don't have a reference, but I believe I've got the arrow pointing the right way. I've never heard of anyone being able to regenerate used photographic film by gently heating it or some such method.
What does your earlier comment have to do with silver halide thermodynamics? You hypothesized that it was in a metastable state, where it didn't need the full energy of the photon to react. This is contrary to the normal physical description for how photographic emulsions work ... there is an (effectively) irreversible chemical reaction (the reduction of silver ions to metallic silver), which can only happen when an electron is promoted from the valence band of the silver halide salt, into the conduction band. The reason these emulsions can be used to record visible light images is because the band gap is accessible to energies of photons in the visible spectrum. If it were accessible to lower energy photons, then you would be able to record infrared images also, which is not possible.

So, your hypothesis starts out on (very) thin ice, and that is why it needs to be supported by appropriate references.

I put this example in as a contrast with the phtographic plate to show that in situations where you have a verifiable amount of energy absorbed in the detection process, your position measurement can become a little vague. It's not the the location of the exact point is "unpredictable": in fact it's unmeasurable, or at least it's certainly not measured in any version of the experiment that I know of. Even your assertion that it leaves from a single point is not easily verifiable.

Of course it's not unmeasurable ... there are velocity map imaging techniques that can record how photoelectrons are emitted from molecules after UV excitation ... these could certainly be applied to metal surfaces to look at photoelectrons .. that is a *way* easier experiment. The question as to whether they will be emitted from "single points" is a question of resolution. The emitted electrons will have wave character, so their emission points will be somewhat uncertain, but that uncertainty should be small .. at least on the order of microns, and perhaps much smaller.

Good one. I forgot about the silver atoms. But this wasn't my example: my example was the Stern Gerlach experiment performed on electrons, and you haven't exactly dealt with it. Well, mabye you have after all, to the extent that you've challenged me to apply the same logic to silver atoms. Fair enough:

No I "dealt with it" by pointing out that SG experiments can't be carried out on electrons, because of the Lorentz force.

What do we actually observe in the Stern Gerlach experiment? A jet of silver effuses (learned that word from peteratcam's explanation in another thread!) from an oven, splits in two passing through a magnet, and two cloudy patches develop on a plate. All this is in accordance with the unitary time-evolution of the wave function. Where does the "collapse" occur? I know the answer: just send a single silver atom through the apparatus and watch for it to appear at one spot or the other. The problem is this is a very difficult experiment to do, and I'm not sure it's ever been done. People assume that the behavior of the bulk material can be broken down into individual atomic events. That's an assumption and it is not easy to verify experimentally.

Again, you are hypothesizing in a seemingly nonsensical manner. There is never any "bulk" silver, or even silver clusters, flying through the apparatus ... atom sources are well understood, and can be tuned so the cluster flux is effectively zero, and only atoms are emitted. So, whatever builds up on the plate builds up an atom at a time.

But you don't have to believe me about such things, consider the atom interferometer that has been built using SG magnets: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107632668/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Also, with modern detectors, it is certainly possible to detect single atoms in a position sensitive way ... for example they could be resonantly ionized using a laser with a small cross section, and the resultant charged particles detected. Here is a link to a delayed choice SG experiment done using single metastable hydrogen atoms. http://quantmag.ppole.ru/Articles/Lawson_p5042_1.pdf
 
  • #15
SpectraCat said:
What does your earlier comment have to do with silver halide thermodynamics? You hypothesized that it was in a metastable state, where it didn't need the full energy of the photon to react. This is contrary to the normal physical description for how photographic emulsions work ... there is an (effectively) irreversible chemical reaction (the reduction of silver ions to metallic silver), which can only happen when an electron is promoted from the valence band of the silver halide salt, into the conduction band. The reason these emulsions can be used to record visible light images is because the band gap is accessible to energies of photons in the visible spectrum. If it were accessible to lower energy photons, then you would be able to record infrared images also, which is not possible.

Thanks, Spectracat; this is actually a better explanation of the process than I've seen. I used the words "spontaneity" and "thermodynics" to indicate what you have called an "irreversible chemical reaction". I think it comes to the same thing.

It's significant in my explanation because I distinguish two kinds of detection events:

1) the energy required for the detection process is supplied entirely by the particle being detected.

2) there is available energy in the detection mechanism to drive the detection process.

From your explanation, the photographic plate falls in category 2, which was my original point: since the all the energy of the photon wasn't required to drive the phase transition, you can't conclude that it was ever localized at the position of the crystal.
Of course it's not unmeasurable ... there are velocity map imaging techniques that can record how photoelectrons are emitted from molecules after UV excitation ... these could certainly be applied to metal surfaces to look at photoelectrons .. that is a *way* easier experiment. The question as to whether they will be emitted from "single points" is a question of resolution. The emitted electrons will have wave character, so their emission points will be somewhat uncertain, but that uncertainty should be small .. at least on the order of microns, and perhaps much smaller.

My original point was that in the photoelectric experiment, you don't normally identify where the photon hit the plate. You are speculating that the experiment could be modified to pinpoint the source of the emitted electrons. I am speculating that you can't.
No I "dealt with it" by pointing out that SG experiments can't be carried out on electrons, because of the Lorentz force.

I'm no experimentalist, but this doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle. Theoretically you could place the ordinary SG apparatus in a room surrounded by a giant magnet pointing the opposite way, so there was nothing left of the field except the gradient.
Again, you are hypothesizing in a seemingly nonsensical manner. There is never any "bulk" silver, or even silver clusters, flying through the apparatus ... atom sources are well understood, and can be tuned so the cluster flux is effectively zero, and only atoms are emitted. So, whatever builds up on the plate builds up an atom at a time.

You are awfully picky about my choice of descriptive words. I used the word "bulk" in context to contrast it with "one-atom-at-a-time", and re-reading my initial post it seems to me this is pretty clear from context. You make it sound like I imagine great globs of molten silver flying through the air.
But you don't have to believe me about such things, consider the atom interferometer that has been built using SG magnets: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107632668/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Also, with modern detectors, it is certainly possible to detect single atoms in a position sensitive way ... for example they could be resonantly ionized using a laser with a small cross section, and the resultant charged particles detected. Here is a link to a delayed choice SG experiment done using single metastable hydrogen atoms. http://quantmag.ppole.ru/Articles/Lawson_p5042_1.pdf

The question is: does the spin state "collapse" when you measure it? The SG experiment does not answer this question because it doesn't look at single atoms. You prepare a beam in an arbitrary orientation, put it through the magnets and you get two spots on a plate. You have therefore measured the spin of the beam to the extent that it is, say, 40% up and 60% down based on the intensity of the two spots. It is, so to speak, a "bulk proerty" of the beam. You never actually observe the spin state collapsing.

Again, you are speculating that the experiment could be redesigned so that a single silver atom with, say, a y-oriented spin, is sent through a z-oriented SG magnet; and that at the "moment of measurement, its spin suddenly jumps into either the +z or -z state. I am speculating that you can't.
 
  • #16


conway said:
Thanks, Spectracat; this is actually a better explanation of the process than I've seen. I used the words "spontaneity" and "thermodynics" to indicate what you have called an "irreversible chemical reaction". I think it comes to the same thing.

It's significant in my explanation because I distinguish two kinds of detection events:

1) the energy required for the detection process is supplied entirely by the particle being detected.

2) there is available energy in the detection mechanism to drive the detection process.

From your explanation, the photographic plate falls in category 2, which was my original point: since the all the energy of the photon wasn't required to drive the phase transition, you can't conclude that it was ever localized at the position of the crystal.




My original point was that in the photoelectric experiment, you don't normally identify where the photon hit the plate. You are speculating that the experiment could be modified to pinpoint the source of the emitted electrons. I am speculating that you can't.




I'm no experimentalist, but this doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle. Theoretically you could place the ordinary SG apparatus in a room surrounded by a giant magnet pointing the opposite way, so there was nothing left of the field except the gradient.





You are awfully picky about my choice of descriptive words. I used the word "bulk" in context to contrast it with "one-atom-at-a-time", and re-reading my initial post it seems to me this is pretty clear from context. You make it sound like I imagine great globs of molten silver flying through the air.




The question is: does the spin state "collapse" when you measure it? The SG experiment does not answer this question because it doesn't look at single atoms. You prepare a beam in an arbitrary orientation, put it through the magnets and you get two spots on a plate. You have therefore measured the spin of the beam to the extent that it is, say, 40% up and 60% down based on the intensity of the two spots. It is, so to speak, a "bulk proerty" of the beam. You never actually observe the spin state collapsing.

Again, you are speculating that the experiment could be redesigned so that a single silver atom with, say, a y-oriented spin, is sent through a z-oriented SG magnet; and that at the "moment of measurement, its spin suddenly jumps into either the +z or -z state. I am speculating that you can't.

I can only comment on one point... the "magnet pointing the other way" idea is FAR better in theory than practice. In practice, I don't believe the Lorentz force could be eliminated to anyone's satisfacting without introducing unwanted elements.

The rest, well... does a spin state EVER collapse? These experiments support, and represent the progress of SQM where other interpretations fail to do anything but keep pace. Yes, you can critique anyone experiment, but it's the growing preponderance of the evidence that is the issue.
 
  • #17


conway said:
Thanks, Spectracat; this is actually a better explanation of the process than I've seen. I used the words "spontaneity" and "thermodynics" to indicate what you have called an "irreversible chemical reaction". I think it comes to the same thing.

It's significant in my explanation because I distinguish two kinds of detection events:

1) the energy required for the detection process is supplied entirely by the particle being detected.

2) there is available energy in the detection mechanism to drive the detection process.

From your explanation, the photographic plate falls in category 2, which was my original point: since the all the energy of the photon wasn't required to drive the phase transition, you can't conclude that it was ever localized at the position of the crystal.

No, how on Earth did you come to that conclusion? The way that the irreversible chemical reaction happens is that the *entire* energy of the visible photon is absorbed, resulting in the promotion of an electron from the valence band to the conduction band. The resulting electron then reduces a silver ion to a silver atom. This is an explicitly local process, otherwise the entire principle of photography would be invalid ... oh by the way, your eyes wouldn't work either if the process of photon detection wasn't local. The counter-examples are myriad and obvious ... I have no idea where you are coming up with your "interpretations".


My original point was that in the photoelectric experiment, you don't normally identify where the photon hit the plate. You are speculating that the experiment could be modified to pinpoint the source of the emitted electrons. I am speculating that you can't.

Dammit, I am *not* speculating, so watch it .. this is my research field ... velocity map imaging is a well-documented technique that deals precisely with the issue that you raised. You should darn well read up on it before you place yourself on equal footing with me in this area and accuse me of being speculative.

I'm no experimentalist, but this doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle. Theoretically you could place the ordinary SG apparatus in a room surrounded by a giant magnet pointing the opposite way, so there was nothing left of the field except the gradient.

Whatever, AFAIK, this experiment hasn't been done .. there is no reason why it wouldn't work in the theoretical case that you mention. So, what was the interpretation you put forward for the electron experiment? And don't make it dependent on a single detection method (i.e. phosphor screen) .. it needs to be equally relevant irrespective of the physical measurement technique (e.g. photo electron multiplier tube, channeltron electron multiplier, charge coupled device, etc.). You also need to allow for separate, independent detectors to be placed at the two output of the split beam .. AFAICS, that will completely invalidate your initial analysis where the electron "jointly excites" two spots on the screen, but only one shows up, or whatever you were trying to say.

You are awfully picky about my choice of descriptive words. I used the word "bulk" in context to contrast it with "one-atom-at-a-time", and re-reading my initial post it seems to me this is pretty clear from context. You make it sound like I imagine great globs of molten silver flying through the air.

I have no idea what you were postulating .. it was not clear from context.

The question is: does the spin state "collapse" when you measure it? The SG experiment does not answer this question because it doesn't look at single atoms. You prepare a beam in an arbitrary orientation, put it through the magnets and you get two spots on a plate. You have therefore measured the spin of the beam to the extent that it is, say, 40% up and 60% down based on the intensity of the two spots. It is, so to speak, a "bulk proerty" of the beam. You never actually observe the spin state collapsing.

Uh-huh ... and what is your postulated counterexample, that the silver atoms somehow hit both spots on the screen? Please ... this experiment is well understood and described in the context of the wavefunctions of single particles becoming entangled with the distinct spatial paths of the spin-up and spin-down components of the beam. This entanglement is then resolved into a single state via decoherence when the wavefunction interacts with the detector.

Again, you are speculating that the experiment could be redesigned so that a single silver atom with, say, a y-oriented spin, is sent through a z-oriented SG magnet; and that at the "moment of measurement, its spin suddenly jumps into either the +z or -z state. I am speculating that you can't.

Ok, you are really starting to irritate me with the completely unfounded accusations of speculation ... did you even look at the articles I posted? One of them expressly deals with "single atom mode" for the SG apparatus discussed. I am talking about reference-supported science here, and you are hypothesizing half-baked alternate theories that are completely unsupported by anything, and generally mis-represent at least one known aspect of physics.
 
  • #18


I guess that means we're not friends anymore. :>(
 
  • #19


SpectraCat said:
No, how on Earth did you come to that conclusion? The way that the irreversible chemical reaction happens is that the *entire* energy of the visible photon is absorbed...

But an "irreversible chemical reaction" doesn't need energy to drive it; it releases energy. So the fact that the reaction proceded to completion is no evidence at all that the "entire" energy of the photon was absorbed at the location of the spot.

...resulting in the promotion of an electron from the valence band to the conduction band. The resulting electron then reduces a silver ion to a silver atom. This is an explicitly local process, otherwise the entire principle of photography would be invalid ... oh by the way, your eyes wouldn't work either...

Sure they would. The rate of events is still proportional to the local field intensity in my model, the same as in yours.
 
  • #20


conway said:
But an "irreversible chemical reaction" doesn't need energy to drive it; it releases energy. So the fact that the reaction proceded to completion is no evidence at all that the "entire" energy of the photon was absorbed at the location of the spot.



Sure they would. The rate of events is still proportional to the local field intensity in my model, the same as in yours.

What does the reversability of a chemical reaction have to do with it being exo- or endo- thermic? Energy release is a function of the nature of the reaction, not its reversability.
 
  • #21


Frame Dragger said:
What does the reversability of a chemical reaction have to do with it being exo- or endo- thermic? Energy release is a function of the nature of the reaction, not its reversability.

I don't think I said that the process was exothermic, although I'm guessing it would be. Spectracat might be able to tell us one way or the other. The point is with an irreversible reaction you don't need to supply external energy in order to make it happen. To speed it up maybe, but that's another question.

The free energy of the reaction products is lower than the free energy of unilluminated crystal, so there is no evidence that the entire energy of a photon had to be concentrated at the point of reaction.
 
  • #22


conway said:
I don't think I said that the process was exothermic, although I'm guessing it would be. Spectracat might be able to tell us one way or the other. The point is with an irreversible reaction you don't need to supply external energy in order to make it happen. To speed it up maybe, but that's another question.

The free energy of the reaction products is lower than the free energy of unilluminated crystal, so there is no evidence that the entire energy of a photon had to be concentrated at the point of reaction.

I should have been clearer, and you're right, it could be a reaction that is purely luminescent, etc. That said, there are certainly irreversable reactions which DO require energy, such as the transition of a metal to a plasma. I understand the point you're trying to make however, and this isn't Chemistry Forums so I'll leave it be.

I'm still unconvinced by this "point of reaction" or detector-centric rather than quanta-centric view. I've heard it a lot, but it just seems to shift the issue rather than solve it, and as SpectraCat keeps saying everything about this is vague and unverified. I need more than analogies or toy models to be sold on this, when there is (as Cat has said) a lot of well established evidence in this field.
 
  • #23


conway said:
I don't think I said that the process was exothermic, although I'm guessing it would be. Spectracat might be able to tell us one way or the other. The point is with an irreversible reaction you don't need to supply external energy in order to make it happen. To speed it up maybe, but that's another question.

No, this is an endo-ergic reaction, that is, it requires energy to go from the reactant (ground state silver halide) to the product (silver metal). Those thermodynamics are easily verified. The energy to make the reaction go is supplied by the photon. Once the electron is promoted to the conduction band, which takes the entire energy of the photon, the reaction can then occur, not before.

The free energy of the reaction products is lower than the free energy of unilluminated crystal, so there is no evidence that the entire energy of a photon had to be concentrated at the point of reaction.

No, that is not right .. the free energy is lower than the silver halide crystal plus the conduction band electron. The electron promotion has to happen first, or else there is not enough energy for the reaction to go. As I have said, that is why photographic film is sensitive to light in the visible spectrum ... if it were just made of thermodynamically metastable crystals, as you have hypothesized, then the wavelength of the photon wouldn't matter, would it?

Look, you have way more problems with your model than just the chemistry being backwards. You have to explain how it is possible to form an image in the first place, if the process of excitation that exposes the film doesn't depend on the position of the incident photon. Your speculation is that the photon is somehow absorbed globally, and some random silver halide crystal spontaneously turns into silver, but that the locations of the two events are not connected. This is demonstrably at odds with the electronic and optical physics, as well as the chemistry involved in the problem, as it is conventionally understood. So, if you want to have a snowball's chance to convince anyone, you need to address each of the points one by one, which you have not done. You have just made some guesses about what you think might be happening, which I have shown to be incorrect. I love to argue, so when I have time I post responses, but eventually it gets tiresome when you don't seem to be paying serious attention to what I am saying.
 
  • #24


SpectraCat said:
No, this is an endo-ergic reaction, that is, it requires energy to go from the reactant (ground state silver halide) to the product (silver metal). Those thermodynamics are easily verified. The energy to make the reaction go is supplied by the photon. Once the electron is promoted to the conduction band, which takes the entire energy of the photon, the reaction can then occur, not before.



No, that is not right .. the free energy is lower than the silver halide crystal plus the conduction band electron. The electron promotion has to happen first, or else there is not enough energy for the reaction to go. As I have said, that is why photographic film is sensitive to light in the visible spectrum ... if it were just made of thermodynamically metastable crystals, as you have hypothesized, then the wavelength of the photon wouldn't matter, would it?

Look, you have way more problems with your model than just the chemistry being backwards. You have to explain how it is possible to form an image in the first place, if the process of excitation that exposes the film doesn't depend on the position of the incident photon. Your speculation is that the photon is somehow absorbed globally, and some random silver halide crystal spontaneously turns into silver, but that the locations of the two events are not connected. This is demonstrably at odds with the electronic and optical physics, as well as the chemistry involved in the problem, as it is conventionally understood. So, if you want to have a snowball's chance to convince anyone, you need to address each of the points one by one, which you have not done. You have just made some guesses about what you think might be happening, which I have shown to be incorrect. I love to argue, so when I have time I post responses, but eventually it gets tiresome when you don't seem to be paying serious attention to what I am saying.

The only way his position makes sense is with a Pilot Wave, or some kind of complex or massive consciousness bias. I don't see that being feasible.

@conway: Can I ask why you want to believe this, or do believe this compared to the formalism? Your notion would invalidate all current optical physics and more, so... where's the upside of this interpretation?
 
  • #25


SpectraCat said:
No, this is an endo-ergic reaction, that is, it requires energy to go from the reactant (ground state silver halide) to the product (silver metal). Those thermodynamics are easily verified.

Yes, I don't see why not. I might be able to verify them myself if you would be kind enough to write out the chemical reaction in full.


No, that is not right .. the free energy is lower than the silver halide crystal plus the conduction band electron.

Of course it is. If the free energy of the products is lower than the free energy of the reactants, (which is all I claimed) then of course the free energy of the products is lower than the free energy of the reactants plus a random photon.


Look, you have way more problems with your model than just the chemistry being backwards. You have to explain how it is possible to form an image in the first place...

Not really. When I started this discussion I said "let the photon pass through a pinhole so it spreads out across the area of the photographic plate". In that situation there is of course no image.
 
  • #26


Frame Dragger said:
@conway: Can I ask why you want to believe this, or do believe this compared to the formalism? Your notion would invalidate all current optical physics and more, so... where's the upside of this interpretation?

The only notion we're debating at this moment is whether the conversion of silver halide represents a metastable state going to one of lower energy, as I've suggested. I don't think the fate of physics hinges on whether I'm right or wrong on this small point. Please don't define my "notion" as everything Spectracat claims it to be.
 
  • #27


conway said:
Yes, I don't see why not. I might be able to verify them myself if you would be kind enough to write out the chemical reaction in full.

I'll look them up and get back to you. In the meantime, you might want to check out http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/film6.htm". It gives no numbers, but notice the language concerning the silver atom .. it is *unstable*, which in chemical terms means it has a *higher* energy than the reactants used to create it. That is consistent with what I have been saying .. this is an endo-ergic reaction .. the free energy change is positive going from silver halide to silver. Once again, let me stress that is why the photo-electron is needed to drive the reaction.


Of course it is. If the free energy of the products is lower than the free energy of the reactants, (which is all I claimed) then of course the free energy of the products is lower than the free energy of the reactants plus a random photon.

But you are wrong about your first claim ... the free energy of the products is *higher* than that of the reactants .. read my last post again, and what I have written above, carefully this time.

Not really. When I started this discussion I said "let the photon pass through a pinhole so it spreads out across the area of the photographic plate". In that situation there is of course no image.

Ok, you are making it clearer and clearer that you have no idea what you are talking about. May I suggest that you google pinhole camera? That is the most basic kind of imaging device, upon which the very first camera's were based. I have used such a device to view sunspots and solar eclipses .. I assure you that they work just fine for imaging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28


conway said:
The only notion we're debating at this moment is whether the conversion of silver halide represents a metastable state going to one of lower energy, as I've suggested. I don't think the fate of physics hinges on whether I'm right or wrong on this small point. Please don't define my "notion" as everything Spectracat claims it to be.

Why shouldn't he? .. clearly I have convinced Frame Dragger with my arguments, and he is entitled to his opinion as an objective observer. Have you even considered the possibility that you might be wrong yet? That is always a healthy thing to do any debate ... it drastically speeds up the process of learning, and reduces the chance that you will end up having to make an embarrassing retraction later.

Right now, you are seriously on the short end of this discussion, which Frame Dragger has realized .. I have backed up my points with facts and references ... whereas you have used your own vague ideas of how you think things ought to be, and a little logic. So why shouldn't he be more convinced by my side of the argument?
 
  • #29


conway said:
The only notion we're debating at this moment is whether the conversion of silver halide represents a metastable state going to one of lower energy, as I've suggested. I don't think the fate of physics hinges on whether I'm right or wrong on this small point. Please don't define my "notion" as everything Spectracat claims it to be.

My point isn't that physics is about to be unhinged... rather that your assumptions are so far off that they would require a radical re-writing of basic optical phsyics. As SpectraCat said, you use the example of a pinhole camera as an example of why it wouldn't be a camera? You keep ignoring that you have the chemistry backwards!

EDIT: As SpectraCat has said, he HAS convinced me, his references all make sense, and what you're saying is fundmanetally contradictory. I considered that maybe "photon through a pinhole" is your version of "one photon", and therefore SpectraCat's "pinhole camera" analogy is overdoing it. Even THEN of course, a SINGLE photon could create a spot, just like a single dot on a detector plate for a double-slit experiment. That's the only way I can imagine you being anything other than just... really really off base and unwilling to admit it.
 
  • #30


Re-read what I said about passing a photon through a pinhole "so it spreads out". For this to work the pinhole must be on the order of the wavelength of light. A "pinhole camera" is a totally differfent device with a much larger hole. A single photon passing into a "pinhole camera" would not spread out but rather would procede in the direction it entered the camera. Otherwise it would not form an image.

I'm still waiting for the thermodynamic data on the silver halide transition.
 
  • #31


conway said:
Re-read what I said about passing a photon through a pinhole "so it spreads out". For this to work the pinhole must be on the order of the wavelength of light. A "pinhole camera" is a totally differfent device with a much larger hole. A single photon passing into a "pinhole camera" would not spread out but rather would procede in the direction it entered the camera. Otherwise it would not form an image.

Fair enough ... I missed that in your original post ... I did not connect your "spreading out" with a Fraunhoffer diffraction limited case, although perhaps I could have. And the word "pinhole" was unfortunate, since it immediately brought to mind a pinhole camera. That does not change the chemistry argument, but I understand better what you have in mind.

I'm still waiting for the thermodynamic data on the silver halide transition.

Here you go:

The enthalpy of formation of Silver halides:

AgCl(s) --> -127 kJ/mol
AgBr(s) --> -99 kJ/mol
AgI(s) --> -64 kJ/mol

The main point ... the process of forming all of these from their constituent elements in their standard states is exothermic. The photographic process uses light to reverse this chemistry, therefore it will be endothermic, as I have told you.

The reaction goes like this, take AgI as an example. The first thing that happens is that the photon knocks an electron off the iodide ion to form iodine:

AgI(s) + hv --> Ag+ + I + e-

That electron rapidly recombines with a silver ion to form silver metal

Ag+ + e- --> Ag

So the overall reaction is:

AgI(s) --> Ag + I

Which is the reverse of the formation reaction above, and hence has a heat of reaction of +64 kJ/mol. See?

Now, we can quibble about whether or not the elemental iodine is in its standard state or not (the silver certainly is), but that would only increase the endothermicity of the process, since any other state of elemental iodine would be higher in energy (that is the definition of the standard state).
 
  • #32


Well done, Spectracat. I really didn't expect the numbers to come out your way. I guess I was wrong.

Now I know how irritating it is when your opponent refuses to bow down before such a complete and overwhelming victory (no, I'm not being sarcastic!); and I acknowledge that you have written the correct chemical equation. But you may possibly have learned along the way, as I did, that the details of the photographic process are not so thoroughly well understood as one might assume. I know it's a bit late for me to second guess things because I'm the one that put all my money on the thermodynamics, but it also happens to be true (according to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge) that pure AgBr crystals actually exhibit "poor photographic sensitivity" and for practical purposes it is necessary to modify the crystal by creating "ionic defects and electron traps". If I were terribly stubborn, I might argue that it is the availble energy in these unfilled traps which drives the process to completion, not the energy of the incident photon.

In any case, since the silver speck appears at the location of the trap and not at the location where the photoelectron was created, my original claim retains at least a grain of truth: namely, that the presence of the silver speck does not reflect, at a microscopic level, the position at which the photon wave function "collapsed into an eigenstate".
 
  • #33


Frame Dragger said:
@conway: Can I ask why you want to believe this, or do believe this compared to the formalism?

It sounds like you're asking me to psychoanalyze myself, which I'm going to pass on other than to say it's maybe a general underdog thing. I have to say, however, in terms of what people "want" to believe, I've never understood how the vast majority of "serious" people in these discussion groups really really "want" to believe in the formalism as you've called it. I find my own psychology of hoping for some great intuitive breakthrough, twisted as it evidently appears to others, to be more natural.

Your notion would invalidate all current optical physics and more, so... where's the upside of this interpretation?

I hope you will agree that on this small point at least, unless I'm mistaken, even Spectracat has backed off on that particular criticism which I understand originated from the confusion between a pinhole lightsource and a pinhole camera.
 
  • #34


There's one more point I'd like to clear up, because I took a lot of criticism for it in this thread. On two occasions Spectracat referred to the photographic process as "irreversible". I responded that if it was irreversible, it didn't need any input of energy from the photon in order to procede to completion. I was roundly ridiculed for this:

spectracat said:
No, how on Earth did you come to that conclusion? The way that the irreversible chemical reaction happens is that the *entire* energy of the visible photon is absorbed, resulting in the promotion of an electron from the valence band to the conduction band... I have no idea where you are coming up with your "interpretations".

And by Frame Dragger as well:

Frame Dragger said:
What does the reversability of a chemical reaction have to do with it being exo- or endo- thermic? Energy release is a function of the nature of the reaction, not its reversability.

I was even doubting myself for a while there and so I looked up the correct usage of the term. It seems I was right after all. In chemistry, an irreversible reaction is one that procedes essentially to completion once it has begun, being driven by its own available free energy. Lighting a match would be an example. A reversible reaction is qualitativley different in that while it may procede in the positive direction, it eventually comes to rest at an equilibrium concentration. The textbook example is the synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen.

So when Spectracat said that the photographic process was an irreversible reaction, unless he meant to support my claim he was simply making an incorrect use of the terminology.
 
  • #35


conway said:
There's one more point I'd like to clear up, because I took a lot of criticism for it in this thread. On two occasions Spectracat referred to the photographic process as "irreversible". I responded that if it was irreversible, it didn't need any input of energy from the photon in order to procede to completion. I was roundly ridiculed for this:



And by Frame Dragger as well:



I was even doubting myself for a while there and so I looked up the correct usage of the term. It seems I was right after all. In chemistry, an irreversible reaction is one that procedes essentially to completion once it has begun, being driven by its own available free energy. Lighting a match would be an example. A reversible reaction is qualitativley different in that while it may procede in the positive direction, it eventually comes to rest at an equilibrium concentration. The textbook example is the synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen.

So when Spectracat said that the photographic process was an irreversible reaction, unless he meant to support my claim he was simply making an incorrect use of the terminology.

I stand by exactly what I said. You're telling me that an irreversible chemical reaction can't be endothermic? We already know that isn't the case. To address your issue more globally, while what you've said IS true about the variosu reactions, that is not their essential definition or distinction. REVERSIBLITY, not equilibrium is the issue, so to quote,

"...the products of certain reactions can be converted back to the reactants. These types of reactions are called reversible reactions...

...On the other hand, the chemical reaction in which the products formed do not combine to give the reactants are known as irreversible reactions."

If you need some more examples try below.

http://www.docbrown.info/page01/ReactionTypes/ReactionTypes.htm

conway said:
It sounds like you're asking me to psychoanalyze myself, which I'm going to pass on other than to say it's maybe a general underdog thing. I have to say, however, in terms of what people "want" to believe, I've never understood how the vast majority of "serious" people in these discussion groups really really "want" to believe in the formalism as you've called it. I find my own psychology of hoping for some great intuitive breakthrough, twisted as it evidently appears to others, to be more natural.

I think you're mistaking a desire for belief, with holding to a formula that has produced workable results. I recently had mentioned that I believed the role of breakthroughs was very great, and someone (I forget who now) here made a fine counterpoint. We all wish for the breakthroughs, but mostly it's incremental work that may lead to a tipping point.

As for the rest, I wasn't trying to analyze you, but rather see what aspect of an alternate theory appeals to you so greatly that formalism is unappealing? I don't agree with him, but Demystifier regularly makes a case for dBB, and I understand why; he sees the theory as being more appealing with fewer contradictions with our observed reality. As the theory is empirically identical to SQM, it's clearly a matter of choice right now. In your case, I wish to understand, what is your dBB, or do you generally hold with formalism/TCI 'with major reservations' (as I believe many do, myself included)?
 
  • #36


Frame Dragger said:
I stand by exactly what I said. You're telling me that an irreversible chemical reaction can't be endothermic?

No. I said that reversible implies spontaneous, not exothermic. And therefore, based on Spectracat's calling the photographic process "irreversible", it was reasonable for me to conclude that it proceded with a release of free energy. Assuming that Spectracat meant what he said. What do you think he meant?
As for the rest, I wasn't trying to analyze you, but rather see what aspect of an alternate theory appeals to you so greatly that formalism is unappealing? I don't agree with him, but Demystifier regularly makes a case for dBB, and I understand why; he sees the theory as being more appealing with fewer contradictions with our observed reality. As the theory is empirically identical to SQM, it's clearly a matter of choice right now. In your case, I wish to understand, what is your dBB, or do you generally hold with formalism/TCI 'with major reservations' (as I believe many do, myself included)?

I don't like the wave function collapse. I thought that would have been clear from my very first post. And I find that many of the most common examples used to demonstrate the supposed collapse of the wavefunction "(from) a superposition of eigenstates of the physical property being measured, ... into a single eigenstate during the measurement process", as Spectracat put it, are false examples. Including the specks of silver on the photographic plate.
 
  • #37


conway said:
No. I said that reversible implies spontaneous, not exothermic. And therefore, based on Spectracat's calling the photographic process "irreversible", it was reasonable for me to conclude that it proceded with a release of free energy. Assuming that Spectracat meant what he said. What do you think he meant?

I assumed he meant "irreversible" or "reversible" in the sense that it is used in chemistry, and logically.


conway said:
I don't like the wave function collapse. I thought that would have been clear from my very first post. And I find that many of the most common examples used to demonstrate the supposed collapse of the wavefunction "(from) a superposition of eigenstates of the physical property being measured, ... into a single eigenstate during the measurement process", as Spectracat put it, are false examples. Including the specks of silver on the photographic plate.

I get that, but SpectraCat just put a broadside into your view...
 
  • #38


I know it must appear that way to you, but surely you know that people with my type of obsession don't let such small obstacles get in their way. The fact of the matter is that I have devised a cunning and amusing argument to demonstrate how his figures show just the opposite. I only hesitate to post it because I have been cautioned several times already in this thread for irritating behavior.
 
  • #39


conway said:
There's one more point I'd like to clear up, because I took a lot of criticism for it in this thread. On two occasions Spectracat referred to the photographic process as "irreversible". I responded that if it was irreversible, it didn't need any input of energy from the photon in order to procede to completion. I was roundly ridiculed for this:



And by Frame Dragger as well:



I was even doubting myself for a while there and so I looked up the correct usage of the term. It seems I was right after all. In chemistry, an irreversible reaction is one that procedes essentially to completion once it has begun, being driven by its own available free energy. Lighting a match would be an example. A reversible reaction is qualitativley different in that while it may procede in the positive direction, it eventually comes to rest at an equilibrium concentration. The textbook example is the synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen.

So when Spectracat said that the photographic process was an irreversible reaction, unless he meant to support my claim he was simply making an incorrect use of the terminology.


*Sigh* ... I was actually giving you credit for a more nuanced understanding of the concept of reversibility in the chemical sense. Go back and look at my post .. I said it was *effectively* irreversible ... look at my later post where I explained what I mean about chemical irreversibility in more detail. {EDIT: I just checked, and apparently I never posted what I wrote on this .. at least I can't find it now. Anyway, it was simply that all chemical reactions are reversible in principle, and it is only secondary effects that make them irreversible. For example, it is often just simple diffusion of the products away from the reaction site that practically rules out the reverse reaction. In other cases, there might be a secondary reaction that binds up one of the products, making it inaccessible for the reversal of the reaction. For activated processes where there is a reverse barrier, there may be rapid energy dissipation out of the products, so that there is a very small probability of them "finding their way" to the reverse reaction before the internal energy drops below the level where it is possible. Highly exothermic reactions, like your match example, are very good approximations of irreversible processes, because the energy barrier for the reverse reaction is so high that there is little (although not zero) probability of observing the reverse reaction.} I was actually assuming that you understood some or all of that, at least implicitly. Furthermore, I was consistent about my description of the thermodynamics ... I said from the start that the products were higher in energy than the reactants .. that was the whole point of my criticism of your hypothesis. Just as a reminder, when the energy (strictly speaking the Gibbs free energy) of the products is higher than that of the reactants, we are describing a thermodynamically non-spontaneous reaction.

So it should have been impossible for you to assume that I meant in any way the basic, general interpretation of irreversibility that you have quoted above. For crying out loud, think about what you are saying! If that definition held in this example, then the entire silver halide crystal would be reduced to silver metal, and possibly the surrounding ones as well. But that doesn't happen ... a *single* silver atom is produced for each photon absorbed. In fact, as I showed you in the link I posted, this atom is unstable, which means that the reaction isn't really irreversible at all (as I also explained), but that there is a non-negligible change that the reaction will spontaneously go in the reverse direction .. which *is* the thermodynamically favored direction.

And by the way ... it didn't just "turn out" that I was right in this case .. I wasn't guessing. I knew this stuff in advance ... I was not speculating, ever. However you refused to take my word for any of it, or look stuff up on your own, so it was just due to your incredible stubbornness that I ended up posting all the gory details. The primary reason I did this is that PF is a database of knowledge, and it behooves all of us to do our best to keep incorrect statements to a minimum, acknowledge and retract them when they are identified by others, and make it clear when we are making "educated guesses", or just wild speculations. The primary issue I have with you is that you put your own half-baked speculations on an equal footing with the more carefully developed, researched and referenced positions of others, and that could be potentially quite confusing to someone who is looking through these threads in hopes of learning something.

So, I don't mind having these discussions (much), or helping you develop your ideas where I can (I will eventually get around to posting on the two-electron well thing again), but I just wish you would be a little more accepting of criticism when it is backed up by solid logic and facts, and not just assume that you are correct because you can't immediately see the point behind my arguments or those of others. I guess it would be helpful if you asked more questions and made fewer declarative statements when you are trying to develop these ideas based on your own admittedly speculative thinking. That's just a suggestion, and you are of course free to carry on as you see fit.
 
Last edited:
  • #40


So do you want to see my thermodynamic analysis or not?
 
  • #41


conway said:
So do you want to see my thermodynamic analysis or not?

Anything you can back up with some facts is fine by me. If think you can "spin" my analysis another way, then am at least a little interested to see your idea.
 
  • #42


conway said:
I don't like the wave function collapse. I thought that would have been clear from my very first post.

And I find that many of the most common examples used to demonstrate the supposed collapse of the wavefunction "(from) a superposition of eigenstates of the physical property being measured, ... into a single eigenstate during the measurement process", as Spectracat put it, are false examples. Including the specks of silver on the photographic plate.

Please say that you find them unconvincing instead of false, ok? Isn't that more accurate? The fact is that I showed in excruciating detail why your argument is wrong for the photograph .. you choose not to accept it, for whatever reason. You want to squeeze out the last shred of possibility that your idea has *any* leg to stand on, let alone convincing credibility.

Look, the silver halide crystals (grains) in question are microscopic ... 2-30 microns in average size, depending on the film quality. So, the "uncertainty" of the location where the photon was detected, due to the need for "ion trap sites" in the grains that you mentioned, is limited to that size range. Call a grain a pixel (that is typical), and consider how many pixels are illuminated in the Airy-disk image attached below (copied from hyperphysics site http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/cirapp2.html" ). So, the diffraction pattern extends over dozens or hundreds of pixels, and you are talking about position uncertainty on the scale of a single pixel ... that seems pretty insignificant in terms of "delocalization", compared to how much the diffraction has "spread out" (your words) the photon's wavefunction based on the image.

Furthermore, the fact that the location of the silver atom on the grain *might be* different then the precise site where the photon was absorbed is not really evidence of the "delocalization" you have hypothesized. It is much more likely that it just indicates that the photoelectron diffused or was ejected away from the site where it was created (i.e. the photon absorption site). That explanation is far more consistent with the current understanding of the physics and chemistry involved in this process, which has been developed, attacked, critically analyzed, and at least provisionally accepted by the greater scientific community over several decades.

But that's not good enough for you for some reason ...
 

Attachments

  • cirap2.gif
    cirap2.gif
    18.4 KB · Views: 451
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43


Frame Dragger said:
You asked for this... remember that. :cry:

Look, it's not that he has nothing interesting to say .. quite the opposite .. some of his other threads have been quite interesting, and he has a different way of looking at things, which should not be under-valued. All I ask is a little refinement of his presentation, indicating clearly which parts are supported by facts/references, which are unsupported but carefully analyzed, and which are just whimsical notions that he hasn't thought through. Those are the standards I try to adhere to .. and most regular posters do the same.

A little more acceptance of constructive criticism would be nice too, but I can understand why that might come hard :wink:
 
  • #44


SpectraCat said:
Anything you can back up with some facts is fine by me. If think you can "spin" my analysis another way, then am at least a little interested to see your idea.

OK, but you aren't going to like this...

You have presented the following equation in support of your position:

AgBr ----> Ag + ½ Br2 ΔH = +99 kJ/mol

You point out that the reaction is endothermic and therefore cannot procede without the input of energy from a photon.

It’s a good argument, and it should be a good argument because it’s my argument. I was the one who suggested, in the face of some initial ridicule, that we could settle the question by looking at the thermodynamics of the process. It turns out that I was right to look at the thermodynamics but wrong to think that we would settle the question in this way.

The Gibbs Free Energy is, of course, the parameter which normally tells us if a reaction procedes to the right or to the left. You have used the enthalpy instead in presenting your numbers; but no matter. The correction for the entropy is in any event rather small; only a little more than 3 kJ/mol in this case. Nothing decisive.

The important factor you have neglected is concentration. The Gibbs Free Energy equation gives us the change in free energy only when the reactants and their products are present in stoichiometric ratios. In the photographic process, a typical crystal may have, after being exposed to light, only a literal handful of silver atoms out of trillions. It is apparent that the silver and silver halide species are very far from their stoichiometric proportions, and therefore a more careful analysis is required.

The themodynamically correct method must be to treat the crystal as a solid solution of silver and silver bromide. In its initial state, the crystal is 100% AgBr. Is the formation of a single silver atom thermodynamically spontaneous, or does it require a net input of free energy?

For convenience, we will double the reaction to clear fractions:

2AgBr -------------> 2Ag + Br2 ΔG = +192 kJ

We can calculate the familiar equilibrium constant from first-year chemistry with the formula

K = exp(-ΔG/RT)

With RT = 2.2 kJ (approx) we get

k=exp(-87) = 10^{-38}

With this information we can write the chemical equilibrium equation:



K = 10^{-38} = \frac{[Ag]^2[Br_2]} {[AgBr]^2}


This equation easily solves for the equilibrium concentration of Ag being approximately one part in ten trillion (10^-13). This is within an order of magnitude or so of typical concentrations in an actual exposed crystal. It is apparent that for an initially pure crystal of AgBr, the spontaneous creation of trace amounts of silver is thermodynamically favored. The stimulation of the incident light wave (I’m going to stop calling it a photon) merely speeds up the process, but is not strictly necessary energetically.

We can do the same calculation a different way. Use the Gibbs Free Energy to calculate the conversion of one part per trillion (10^-12) of silver. It comes to 192 nanojoules. This is the input of free energy required to drive the process. But this assumes that the two species are unmixed. In fact, we ought to treat the silver as being in solution. Then we can show that, within the accuracy of this calculation, the needed energy is available from the entropy of mixing.

The entropy of mixing is given by the formula

ΔS = nRm*ln(m)

where n is the number of moles and m is concentration of the mixed species. Multiplication by T gives you the free energy of mixing:

ΔG = T ΔS = nRTm*ln(m)

For two moles at a concentration of one part per trillion, the free energy comes to 121 nanojoules; and make no mistake, it is in the right direction to drive the reaction forward. It is true that with the numbers I have chosen we are just a little short of the 192 nanojoules we said we needed, but remember we haven’t yet accounted for the contribution from the mixing of the bromine. In any case, you only need to drop the concentration another factor of ten to tilt the reaction decisively to the right.

The case becomes even more convincing (convincing to me, you understand: I know you're still not convinced) when we recall that the crystal in its pure form is considered to be a poor photodetector. In practise the material must be doctored by the addition of impurities, dislocations, and what are called “electron traps” to become really effective. It’s not hard to imagine (OK, for me to imagine) that the energy needed at the trace concentrations we are dealing with comes at least partly if not in large measure from the “doping” of the crystal. In other words, there is plenty of chemical energy available to drive the transition from silver bromide to silver without needing the energy of a photon. This is in line with my original description of the process as proceding from a metastable state to one of lower energy.
 
  • #45


conway said:
OK, but you aren't going to like this...

You have presented the following equation in support of your position:

AgBr ----> Ag + ½ Br2 ΔH = +99 kJ/mol

You point out that the reaction is endothermic and therefore cannot procede without the input of energy from a photon.

It’s a good argument, and it should be a good argument because it’s my argument. I was the one who suggested, in the face of some initial ridicule, that we could settle the question by looking at the thermodynamics of the process. It turns out that I was right to look at the thermodynamics but wrong to think that we would settle the question in this way.

The Gibbs Free Energy is, of course, the parameter which normally tells us if a reaction procedes to the right or to the left. You have used the enthalpy instead in presenting your numbers; but no matter. The correction for the entropy is in any event rather small; only a little more than 3 kJ/mol in this case. Nothing decisive.

The important factor you have neglected is concentration. The Gibbs Free Energy equation gives us the change in free energy only when the reactants and their products are present in stoichiometric ratios. In the photographic process, a typical crystal may have, after being exposed to light, only a literal handful of silver atoms out of trillions. It is apparent that the silver and silver halide species are very far from their stoichiometric proportions, and therefore a more careful analysis is required.

The themodynamically correct method must be to treat the crystal as a solid solution of silver and silver bromide. In its initial state, the crystal is 100% AgBr. Is the formation of a single silver atom thermodynamically spontaneous, or does it require a net input of free energy?

For convenience, we will double the reaction to clear fractions:

2AgBr -------------> 2Ag + Br2 ΔG = +192 kJ

We can calculate the familiar equilibrium constant from first-year chemistry with the formula

K = exp(-ΔG/RT)

With RT = 2.2 kJ (approx) we get

k=exp(-87) = 10^{-38}

With this information we can write the chemical equilibrium equation:



K = 10^{-38} = \frac{[Ag]^2[Br_2]} {[AgBr]^2}


This equation easily solves for the equilibrium concentration of Ag being approximately one part in ten trillion (10^-13). This is within an order of magnitude or so of typical concentrations in an actual exposed crystal. It is apparent that for an initially pure crystal of AgBr, the spontaneous creation of trace amounts of silver is thermodynamically favored. The stimulation of the incident light wave (I’m going to stop calling it a photon) merely speeds up the process, but is not strictly necessary energetically.

We can do the same calculation a different way. Use the Gibbs Free Energy to calculate the conversion of one part per trillion (10^-12) of silver. It comes to 192 nanojoules. This is the input of free energy required to drive the process. But this assumes that the two species are unmixed. In fact, we ought to treat the silver as being in solution. Then we can show that, within the accuracy of this calculation, the needed energy is available from the entropy of mixing.

The entropy of mixing is given by the formula

ΔS = nRm*ln(m)

where n is the number of moles and m is concentration of the mixed species. Multiplication by T gives you the free energy of mixing:

ΔG = T ΔS = nRTm*ln(m)

For two moles at a concentration of one part per trillion, the free energy comes to 121 nanojoules; and make no mistake, it is in the right direction to drive the reaction forward. It is true that with the numbers I have chosen we are just a little short of the 192 nanojoules we said we needed, but remember we haven’t yet accounted for the contribution from the mixing of the bromine. In any case, you only need to drop the concentration another factor of ten to tilt the reaction decisively to the right.

The case becomes even more convincing (convincing to me, you understand: I know you're still not convinced) when we recall that the crystal in its pure form is considered to be a poor photodetector. In practise the material must be doctored by the addition of impurities, dislocations, and what are called “electron traps” to become really effective. It’s not hard to imagine (OK, for me to imagine) that the energy needed at the trace concentrations we are dealing with comes at least partly if not in large measure from the “doping” of the crystal. In other words, there is plenty of chemical energy available to drive the transition from silver bromide to silver without needing the energy of a photon. This is in line with my original description of the process as proceding from a metastable state to one of lower energy.

Interesting, it is wrong, for a few reasons, but it is fairly well thought out and presented. I don't have time to present a full rebuttal right now, but here is a brief summary of the main problem:

You assume the silver halide crystals are 100% pure to start with .. why? Based on your analysis, isn't it more logical to assume they are in the equilibrium that you have predicted? After all, that chemical equilibrium is in play during the crystal formation process. So all the silver atoms that should be formed to keep the system in equilibrium are already present in the crystals, and so there is no thermodynamic driving force from the system being out of equilibrium, as you have predicted.
 
  • #46


SpectraCat said:
Interesting, it is wrong, for a few reasons, but it is fairly well thought out and presented. I don't have time to present a full rebuttal right now, but here is a brief summary of the main problem:

You assume the silver halide crystals are 100% pure to start with .. why? Based on your analysis, isn't it more logical to assume they are in the equilibrium that you have predicted? After all, that chemical equilibrium is in play during the crystal formation process. So all the silver atoms that should be formed to keep the system in equilibrium are already present in the crystals, and so there is no thermodynamic driving force from the system being out of equilibrium, as you have predicted.

Then if the system is at equilibrium it is at least neutral with respect to displacement by a few silver atoms in either direction. In addition, the post-cooling stress dislocations might provide some sites of lower energy to act as traps.
 
  • #47


conway said:
Then if the system is at equilibrium it is at least neutral with respect to displacement by a few silver atoms in either direction. In addition, the post-cooling stress dislocations might provide some sites of lower energy to act as traps.

I don't understand what you are getting at with the above comments ... if the system is at/near equilibrium, then the driving force you have hypothesized could supply "metastability" (your term), is basically zero. So all the energy is going to have to come from that pesky photon.

With regard to the traps ... *lower* energy sites aren't going to help you with your case. You need things to be in a *higher* energy state so that there is some latent energy to drive the reaction (assuming I understand your position).
 
  • #48


Conway, you do yourself NO services by leading with a couple of pages of vague arguments. If you had posted #44 earlier, I wouldn't have thought you were a crank, SpectraCat would still have hair, and you wouldn't have had to work so hard to be understood.

I finally understand why you believe what you do about the detector being the "source" of the 'dot' and not the photon. Your chemistry looks good, but as SpectraCat has said, you need to NOT be in equilibrium, and these traps need energy to spare. Given that, I'm not sure those "traps" would do much trapping in the context of the crystal at (otherwise) equilibrium.

Assuming however that they did, and you meant to say "higher" energy states in the traps, I'm still unclear how this is a BETTER or more convincing explanation than "the photon strikes, a "dot" may appear". In your view, the "incident light wave" helps to disturb matters, but is not necessary? Wouldn't the silver spontaneously develop in the absence of added energy then? This reminds me of early star formation from 'dust' clouds; seemingly clear, but the issue of just WHAT supplies the "bump" to start the collapse is still shockingly debatable.
 
  • #49


Frame Dragger said:
Conway, you do yourself NO services by leading with a couple of pages of vague arguments. If you had posted #44 earlier, I wouldn't have thought you were a crank, SpectraCat would still have hair, and you wouldn't have had to work so hard to be understood.

I have to interpret this as one more instance of fault-finding on your part. In general I try to stick to the physics and not to respond to these little personal swipes (although I suppose even drawing attention to them constitutes a form of response). I just wonder that it doesn't occur to you people that I might find your ways as peculiar as you seem to find mine.

However, in this case I feel I have to respond to your specific point because it echoes something Spectracat said in a discussion last month, to the effect of "why did you ask the question if you already know the answer?" In this case, it should be pretty clear from the discussion that until two days ago I didn't have the thermodynamics at all; I didn't know what the reaction was and it was a bit of a shock to find out how endothermic it was. So I had to come up with post 44 on the fly. I don't see how you could expect me to have posted it earlier when I didn't think it up until yesterday.

I finally understand why you believe what you do about the detector being the "source" of the 'dot' and not the photon. Your chemistry looks good, but as SpectraCat has said, you need to NOT be in equilibrium, and these traps need energy to spare. Given that, I'm not sure those "traps" would do much trapping in the context of the crystal at (otherwise) equilibrium.

Assuming however that they did, and you meant to say "higher" energy states in the traps, I'm still unclear how this is a BETTER or more convincing explanation than "the photon strikes, a "dot" may appear". In your view, the "incident light wave" helps to disturb matters, but is not necessary? Wouldn't the silver spontaneously develop in the absence of added energy then?

My argument does not and cannot possibly explain the fine details of the photographic process. What I claim to have done is made a prima facie case for the possible existence of local sites within the crystal where the reduction of silver is thermodynamically favored. I hope that I have made the scenario sufficiently plausible that is becomes worthwhile to consider the question "what if the reduction of silver does not require the complete energy of a photon?"

You ask why the silver wouldn't develop spontaneously in these circumstances. Again, I have to remind you that the crystals used in photography are complex engineered structures for which we are not going to be able to fully analyze all the details. The best I can do right now is argue by a very rough analogy, which you may or may not find relevant. But here it is:

You have an electron in a potential well (surprise, surprise!). A finite potential well. Nearby there is another well, a deeper but still finite well, unoccupied. We want to get the electron from well A to well B. The potential barrier is 1 eV; so the electron won't go there of its own accord. But in the presence of a photon, the electron may be driven into the free state, from whence it may be captured by the second hole. We can even put both potential wells inside a big box, so the "free" state doesn't actually dissipate off to infinity but remains confined for long enough to effectively mediate between the two wells.

In this analogy, the electron doesn't go from hole A to hole B even though hole B is thermodynamically favored, because it can't overcome the energy barrier. That's my model of the photographic process. In the paragraph above I've applied my model to the traditional explanation of the photography reaction. You can see two things: in the traditional picture, the process requires the entire energy of the photon to make it work; and it works even if well B is at a much higher potential then well A.

My picture of the process procedes a little differently, but first I'd like some feedback as to whether this simplified model of two potential wells inside a big box will be considered an acceptable simplification to allow us to discuss how photography works.
 
  • #50


Frame Dragger said:
As for the rest, I wasn't trying to analyze you, but rather see what aspect of an alternate theory appeals to you so greatly that formalism is unappealing? I don't agree with him, but Demystifier regularly makes a case for dBB, and I understand why; he sees the theory as being more appealing with fewer contradictions with our observed reality. As the theory is empirically identical to SQM, it's clearly a matter of choice right now. In your case, I wish to understand, what is your dBB, or do you generally hold with formalism/TCI 'with major reservations' (as I believe many do, myself included)?

Not to go off on a tangent, but in the meantime I have to say I liked that "what is your dBB". Nicely put. And I didn't really answer it except partially in the negative. What I like is an actual process that takes place in real time (and I won't necessarily object to Cramer's processes in reverse time either except I don't quite know how to use them yet).
 
Back
Top