Do electrons jerk when absorbing radio photons?

[bhobba]

Please see the math presented in my previous post.

You have given no details of how to detect individual photons from an antenna.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ponderer]

Didn't you see Nugatory's post?

You are intermixing quantum and classical - you can't do that.

Thanks
Bill

Fine. Your answer is that it is completely 100% impossible to see the signal of such an aforementioned experiment regardless of technology. That's your answer. Thank you. :)

 

[Ponderer]

You have given no details of how to detect individual photons from an antenna.

Thanks
Bill

You mean the actual technology? There are many options. Why limit it to one? See the tech used to detect weak signals coming from satellites that are far out in our solar system. But why is this a concern for you if you think it's impossible? Just asking.

 

[bhobba]

Fine. Your answer is that it is completely 100% impossible to see the signal of such an aforementioned experiment regardless of technology

What I and Nugatory are saying is you have proposed an experiment that will not allow you to detect quantum effects with any technology we have current available or is expected to be available any-time soon.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

You mean the actual technology? There are many options. Why limit it to one? See the tech used to detect weak signals coming from satellites that are far out in our solar system. But why is this a concern for you if you think it's impossible? Just asking.

Please detail the technology that will detect individual photons in the antenna.

But why is this a concern for you if you think it's impossible? Just asking.

Why are you proposing experiments beyond current technology and expecting an answer in terms of incompatible concepts - namely quantum and classical.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ponderer]

What I and Nugatory are saying is you have proposed an experiment that will not allow you to detect quantum effects with any technology we have current available or is expected to be available any-time soon.

Thanks
Bill

Anytime soon?? What does that mean? You're saying it might be possible or that you're uncertain?

 

[Ponderer]

Please detail the technology that will detect individual photons in the antenna.

Thanks
Bill

But why? I've named one type early on in thread. Amplifiers and oscilloscopes in electronics show voltage and current. So you would just accuse me of using classical mechanics. I don't know how to get my scope to show me fock space or anything like that lol. ;)

 

[bhobba]

Anytime soon?? What does that mean? You're saying it might be possible or that you're uncertain?

It means we have certain physical theories and technologies associated with it. That is not likely to change any time soon. But the further you go into the future its possible things may change.

But you are the one claiming we have technology to do it - please detail the technology, including the math, that shows you will be able to detect individual photons at the rate emitted by your transmitter. Simply claiming its sensitive enough is not not enough.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ponderer]

Why are you proposing experiments beyond current technology and expecting an answer in terms of incompatible concepts - namely quantum and classical.

What?? The experiment is connecting a voltage source to a resistor and antenna, and trying to see the signal on an oscilloscope from a receiving antenna, and asking you what the scope would see. If you think it will be noise then say so. But please don't accuse me of things I'm not doing.

 

[Ponderer]

It means we have certain physical theories and technologies associated with it. That is not likely to change any time soon. But the further you go into the future its possible things may change.

But you are the one claiming we have technology to do it - please detail the technology, including the math, that shows you will be able to detect individual photons at the rate emitted by your transmitter. Simply claiming its sensitive enough is not not enough.

Thanks
Bill

I already showed the math. All that's required is to find a sensor and amplifier capable of working at those temperatures and frequencies. In fact the frequency comes down to 10GHz at 10mK temperature. I don't have the money for such technology but I've read about them. Each component is going to have a different datasheet. I would have to contact various companies to get the datasheet and then analyze them, but what the numbers I saw seem well within present technology in my opinion.

 

[bhobba]

What?? The experiment is connecting a voltage source to a resistor and antenna, and trying to see the signal on an oscilloscope from a receiving antenna, and asking you what the scope would see. If you think it will be noise then say so. But please don't accuse me of things I'm not doing.

Didnt you read what Nugatory said? I will repeat it:

... or about 1e10 photons per second at wavelengths in the tens of centimeters. The discrete nature of the incoming radiation will be completely invisible with steps this small (we might as usefully try to show that water is made up of molecules by looking for discrete steps in the damage done by ocean waves in a storm) so the quantum mechanical prediction is that the quantum mechanical effects will not be observed.

Now exactly why do think you can discern it? Be exact. Show that your detector has this resolution.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I already showed the math. All that's required is to find a sensor and amplifier capable of working at those temperatures and frequencies..

You have not. Saying you have does not make it so.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ponderer]

It means we have certain physical theories and technologies associated with it. That is not likely to change any time soon. But the further you go into the future its possible things may change.

But you are the one claiming we have technology to do it - please detail the technology, including the math, that shows you will be able to detect individual photons at the rate emitted by your transmitter. Simply claiming its sensitive enough is not not enough.

Thanks
Bill

Here's something I found in about one minute of googling. At only 14k it has an effective noise of 1.4k, which places it in the area my math specified. :) I'm very confident that part is nothing compared to what's out there. BTW it's possible that part can be taken below 14k.

http://www.submm.caltech.edu/cso/receivers/chalmers/wadefalk-mellberg.pdf

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed.