How can electrodynamics prove the stability of electron

[Apollothe]

in quantumdynamics, the stability of electron of H atom is a hypothesis.
but if electrodynamics is right in quantum theories, electron circling a H atom will emit energy, then how can electroquantum theory give a sound prove of the stability of electron?

thanks.

 

[DrChinese]

Welcome to PhysicsForums, Apollothe!

The electron is not in a classical orbit, and that is why it does not emit energy as it circles into the nucleus. The electron exists in discrete orbits corresponding to quantum (whole) numbers, where the innermost shell is 1. It cannot take on a value of 0, which would place it in the nucleus.

 

[DaTario]

I would say that the very notion of an electron tracing a well defined path arounf the nucleus is a misconception at this level. Perhaps the stability of atom may be explained by interferences beteween the radiating electron in one path with the radiating electron in other paths. Multiple path electron seems to be necessary in this discussion.

Best Regards

DaTario

 

[Careful]

Let me try to give a many fingered answer to this question. I have some problems myself with the H atom especially in the Bohm-de Broglie approach where particles do have well defined orbits. The funny thing is that at the l = m = 0 level, the electron would just stand still ! Hence, the H atom would have a permanent electric dipole moment which I could measure in the Bohm-de Broglie approach by making a measurement with a CLASSICAL EM field. This measurement situation would not be possible in the Copenhagen setup since there I would have to go over to second quantization (but again, in my opinion, the Bohm approach allows for this). So in standard QM, you would have to couple the electron to a quantized Mawell field and study the stability of the stationary state (in general the issue is more delicate for the higher orbital momentum states). I remember having seen a recent paper where this difficult analysis has been carefully worked out, but I do not rememeber the reference anymore (perhaps Vanesh can help you out here).

Now, a bit less conventional, the stability of the H atom with the correct energy level, has - I believe - recently been proved by Cole in the framework of stochastic electrodynamics. The idea here, is that the electron is a classical particle spinning fast around the nucleus and emmiting EM energy. However SED postulates the existence of classical vacuum field fluctuations (which is a prediction of second quantization) and one shows that this vacuum field is in equilibrium with the electron. That is, the electron eats as much energy as it radiates and the same does the ``vacuum´´ EM field.

 

[QMrocks]

Now, a bit less conventional, the stability of the H atom with the correct energy level, has - I believe - recently been proved by Cole in the framework of stochastic electrodynamics. The idea here, is that the electron is a classical particle spinning fast around the nucleus and emmiting EM energy. However SED postulates the existence of classical vacuum field fluctuations (which is a prediction of second quantization) and one shows that this vacuum field is in equilibrium with the electron. That is, the electron eats as much energy as it radiates and the same does the ``vacuum´´ EM field.

you happen to have the paper title and publication?

 

[Careful]

you happen to have the paper title and publication?

The paper is written by Daniel C. Cole and Yi Zou : Quantum mechanical ground state of Hydrogen obtained from classical electrodynamics. Just type it in google, I did not check it yet myself to details however...

 

[Norman]

here the paper is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307154

 

[QMrocks]

Thank you Norman and Careful. :)

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't get it.

This paper is trying to mimick the Bohr/Rydberg model. I thought we have moved light years BEYOND such a thing? In other words, I am not impressed by anything that can duplicate a naive model.

Why is this inadequate?

(1) The atomic model has orbitals beyond what the Bohr model can describe.

(2) Not only that, one of the most important aspect of the orbitals is the PHASE sign. For example, the d orbtal has several different symmetries with different phase signs. Is this a big deal? You betcha! The sign in the orbital phase is the origin of the bonding-antibonding bonds and bands! A huge chunk of Chemistry is based on this!

And this is what is severely lacking in classical mechanics. It cannot explain superconductivity because the idea of "phase coherent electrons" is non-existent. And it cannot explain the bonding-antibonding phenomenon because its "atomic model" still mimicks the highly primitive Bohr atom. So this is why I do not get this. I suppose when you look at a cow very far, you can approximate it as a sphere and go away thinking you're on the right track. But the devil is in the detail (or was it god)? Up close, they don't look anywhere resembling each other.

Zz.

 

[DrChinese]

I have some problems myself with the H atom especially in the Bohm-de Broglie approach where particles do have well defined orbits.
...

Now, a bit less conventional, the stability of the H atom with the correct energy level, has - I believe - recently been proved by Cole in the framework of stochastic electrodynamics. The idea here, is that the electron is a classical particle spinning fast around the nucleus and emmiting EM energy.

Would you say that the Cole paper oversells itself a bit? From the abstract:

"These results, obtained without any fitting parameters, again raise the possibility that the main tenets of stochastic electrodynamics (SED) are correct, thereby potentially providing a more fundamental basis of quantum mechanics."

On the other hand, the *actual* conclusion is:

"Without question, the simulations presented here do not 'prove' that SED
works for atomic systems. There are far more tests and phenomena to still be
examined, including relativistic corrections and high frequency effects, atomic
spectra, many electron situations, spin, and an understanding of how 'photon' behavior arises."

(One might even conclude that the author doesn't believe in photons from his quotes around the word photon.)

Careful, if you have a problem with the standard quantum model of the hydrogen atom, perhaps you could tell us what problem that is? By most accounts, it has been a smashing success for 75+ years. It would make a more convincing argument if you compared SED to its most successful competitor (which is not dBB/BM).

 

[Careful]

(One might even conclude that the author doesn't believe in photons from his quotes around the word photon.)
Careful, if you have a problem with the standard quantum model of the hydrogen atom, perhaps you could tell us what problem that is? By most accounts, it has been a smashing success for 75+ years. It would make a more convincing argument if you compared SED to its most successful competitor (which is not dBB/BM).

I said I did not read the paper yet (which I shall do now and you better would read the whole paper before you say something/the comments you make can be applied to almost every paper). What the author probably means when he says that he does not believe in photons is that he does not believe in second quantization of the Maxwell field and this might not be a bad idea at all (many people including nobel prize winners have doubted this). I already outlined ``the problem´´ with the model when I said that the Bohm de Broglie theory suggests that the H - atom should have a permanent electric dipole moment in the ground state, contrary to observation. I would be glad if someone could say something intelligent about this. What concerns the comments of ZapperZ: the Bohr model is exact for the H atom and the authors claim nothing more than treating the ground state of the H atom correctly. His further comments are exactly what you can expect from someone who does not want to think about realist explanations. It does not impress me at all that any of you are just repeating what you learned in textbooks (it actually shows bad research manners): I gave the standard explanation (as a good boy, and perhaps you as a quantum erudit know the reference I was talking about first) and added something I find interesting. It is up to the reader to decide what he thinks about it.

 

[ZapperZ]

What concerns the comments of ZapperZ: the Bohr model is exact for the H atom and the authors claim nothing more than treating the ground state of the H atom correctly.

Bohr model is NOT exact for H-atom. It doesn't explain the degeneracy of the p,d,f,etc orbitals.

His further comments are exactly what you can expect from someone who does not want to think about realist explanations. It does not impress me at all that any of you are just repeating what you learned in textbooks (it actually shows bad research manners):

Come again? Why is it "bad research manners" when asking "So what is new here?" Again, I will come back to the question in which ANY practicing physicist would face on any given day: It may be interesting, but is it IMPORTANT? Why is this severely-restricted model important?

Why are we touting something that, at best, can only mimick the most naive picture of, not ANY atom, but just the H-atom. And it is also not "bad research manners" in questioning the SHORTCOMMING of any model, ideas, and theories. It is the main reason why we become physicists!

And oh, I wasn't simply "repeating" what I learned in textbooks. I dealt DIRECTLY with bonding-antibonding bands in bilayer high-Tc superconductors AND had to figure out the spontaneous currents due to the overlapping of the d_{x^2 - y^2} orbitals in the tricrystal ring experiments of Tsui-Kirtley. I would strongly suggest you do not make any personal characterization of people you hardly know.

Zz.

 

[DrChinese]

I already outlined ``the problem´´ with the model when I said that the Bohm de Broglie theory suggests that the H - atom should have a permanent electric dipole moment in the ground state, contrary to observation.

My question was: what problem do you have with the standard quantum model (which doesn't make that prediction) ? It makes no sense to compare dBB to SED that I can see, when the prevailing theory is neither of these. So I repeat that question, perhaps you might try addressing it specifically? Or if you don't have a problem with the standard model, why don't you tell us that too?

The comments I made included quotes from the reference you cited, so I am not sure what you refer to when you say my comments apply "to almost every paper". They apply to the paper at hand. It purports to give a prediction for an atom in a ground state with one electron. This moves us back in time to 1913 (using a mere 55 computer-days of calculation to get the same answer). I would not call that an impressive feat.

As to belief in photons, I would not say that this is an item that is seriously considered "in play" at this time. There are plenty of experiments which have demonstrated the existence of higher order effects in photons to very high levels of confidence. If there is a Nobel physicist alive who actually doubts this today, I would like to know who that is.

 

[DrChinese]

I said I did not read the paper yet (which I shall do now and you better would read the whole paper before you say something...

A double standard?

You cited the paper to support your contention - and now you admit without you haven't read it! (And you didn't say you hadn't read it, you said you hadn't checked the "details".)

On the other hand, I quoted it verbatim and yet you insist that I must read it in its entirety before even commenting.

 

[Careful]

A double standard?
You cited the paper to support your contention - and now you admit without you haven't read it! (And you didn't say you hadn't read it, you said you hadn't checked the "details".)
On the other hand, I quoted it verbatim and yet you insist that I must read it in its entirety before even commenting.

I read the paper now and it is for sure interesting. The authors do not make any exaggerated claims whatsoever. This paper is largely improving upon any classical atomic model I know. Two things are mainly commented: (a) the author has substantial numerical evidence that in this approach the Schroedinger ground state of the H atom can be obtained from a statistical averaging procedure over realistic time scales of around 10^(-11) seconds of a stochastic Maxwell theory and (b) the circular orbit with the Bohr radius seems to be an attractor of this classical stochastic dynamics. This by itself is an interesting result given that students learn that classical physics already fails at this level. The author clearly mentions what should stil be done like (a) including more electrons (b) including spin. Unlike Zapper Z, I *do* see possibilities how to get an interference effect even at the classical level but I do not know for now if it will come out right (I have even thought of mechanisms which could deliver the other quantum numbers). The comments of Dr. Chinese concerning that the computational power needed for this would somehow invalidate the result, is entirely ridiculous. Any realist theory of the atom would be very complicated (much more than QM) such as the detailed dynamics behind every equilibrium phenomenon is. There is really no point in discussing these things with me : either you accept that there are creative realists around who want to reproduce the quantum successes (which is NOT a waiste of time for several GOOD reasons in my view), or if you think this is not possible then you shoud cook up airthight NO GO theorem. Everything besides this is religion and of no interest to the discussion.

 

[DrChinese]

This paper is largely improving upon any classical atomic model I know.

Careful, you have again ignored alll of ZapperZ's and my questions. I will take that as its own answer. It is clear you have a local realist agenda that you are trying to push under the guise of legitimate posts. If you are a local realist, why don't you simply tell us that to begin with rather than acting coy?

For everyone else: this paper is a total red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the original poster's question. An H atom is NOT a classical electron orbitting a classical nucleus. Even attempting to emulate the Bohr model (which it doesn't even claim to do) is nothing more than an exercise in rolling back the clock to 1913. As ZapperZ pointed out, attempts to describe it in such terms are pointless. The H atom is acts as a quantum system, and has been successfully described as such for over 75 years. Needless to say, it did not require 55 days of computing power on a Pentium computer to get good predictions from quantum theory back then.

The real purpose of the cited paper is to try to find ways to push SED as a viable alternative to oQM. So far, such attempts have had a very poor track record (this paper is such an example) and are mainly pushed by Santos, Marshall and a few others who are firmly in the local realist school. Since the scientific community has embraced Bell and Aspect+, this is considered a fruitless endeavor by all but a vocal minority.

 

[Careful]

Careful, you have again ignored alll of ZapperZ's and my questions. I will take that as its own answer. It is clear you have a local realist agenda that you are trying to push under the guise of legitimate posts. If you are a local realist, why don't you simply tell us that to begin with rather than acting coy?

Look, I am seriously getting fed up with your dogmatic idiocy. I will give you the list of nobel price winners I know who have once refuted for long time the photon concept : Robert Millikan, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie (and since then it just became a habit). The physics in the paper I cited goes way beyond the Bohr model (recall: this was not stable, it did not include radiation). The paper is clearly relevant for this thread, it is just an alternative way of looking at things: you did not comment on the first (conventional) answer I gave on this question and from what I could read you were not even aware of this issue. As you probably noticed, I can talk very civilized and in a CONSTRUCTIVE and HONEST way to Vanesh even though are points of view are somewhat different. I give DIFFERENT answers to the same questions and I STRESS what is conventional and what NOT.
It is up to the READERS to make out what they THINK of it, not what others say they should think about it.

 

[ZapperZ]

Look, I am seriously getting fed up with your dogmatic idiocy. I will give you the list of nobel price winners I know who have once refuted for long time the photon concept : Robert Millikan,

This is misleading. Millikan STARTED not buying into Einstein's photon model, but read his Nobel prize speech. In fact, he acknowledges even in his earlier papers that ALL of his experiments validate Einstein's model. In physics, you cannot have a more convincing verification of your idea when a skeptic of yours produce EXPERIMENTAL observation that verifies your idea.

And please do NOT forget the PF Guidelines regarding personal attacks.

Zz.

 

[Careful]

This is misleading. Millikan STARTED not buying into Einstein's photon model, but read his Nobel prize speech. In fact, he acknowledges even in his earlier papers that ALL of his experiments validate Einstein's model. In physics, you cannot have a more convincing verification of your idea when a skeptic of yours produce EXPERIMENTAL observation that verifies your idea.

And please do NOT forget the PF Guidelines regarding personal attacks.

Zz.

I know this Nobel lecture: my criterion was that there exist nobel prize winners which have doubted this for a LONG time (Bohr accepted it after a while but was never convinced), I did not say always. It is natural that people sometimes change of mind in their life, that is a sign of intelligence. The point is that such arguments should be of no value. Look, what you prefer to see as an ``explanation´´ or ``plausible´´ is entirely your business (I never use arguments based upon belief, I always argue), moreover it is possible to get particle like behaviour out of a classical maxwell field. I think that Dr Chinese could also be accused of stalking; my personal preference is entirely IRRELEVANT, I just offer scientific information (in the same way he should accuse 't Hooft to be a non-believer). Hereby, I would like to ask dr Chinese to stop doing this, it makes no sense and is annoying. I believe he is long enough around here for people to know his view.

Cheers,

Careful

 

[vanesch]

Please, people, calm down (on both sides of the fence!).
Personally, I find it interesting to discuss non-conventional views for several reasons:
- first of all, they sometimes point out things about the more conventional views I didn't realize
- second, it can be instructive for both parties to discuss this scientifically
- it is not because something is "obviously" going to have difficulties in a certain respect, that it is uninteresting to discuss the aspects where it seems to work.
I myself learn often more by trying to reply to an "alternative view" than by just reading yet another standard explanation.
However, I want to do this on three conditions:
- that the discussion is informative, eg, that the "opposing party" is willing to explain, and not simply to say that "if I were to read the relevant literature, all this would be already known and I wouldn't say such nonsense" ; I have to refrain myself from abusing from my supermentor status to shoot of warning points in such cases (which I would, if it were not myself who was the target).
- that the discussion remains focussed on the subject and doesn't involve people, their reputations, ...
- that the proponent of the alternative view shows that he knows the conventional view, its advantages and eventually its problems, and can respect the conventional view as much as I try to respect for the sake of argument, the alternative view.
Honestly, I do find Careful respecting these things in general, so let us also respect his view (although my *personal* opinion is that he's fighting courageously, eh, windmills). We can all learn from the discussion as long as it remains cordial.

 

[DaTario]

It is interesting to note that those spanishes guys which have dealt with SED have obtained some results that are quite intriguing. One of these results is the one in which one concludes that if you search for a vacuum field definition you would probably state that it is the field which should look the same whether you move or not across it. By forcing this condition you will arrive at an expression for the field which is nothing but the spectral composition of QM vacuum, i.e., then sum of one half of hbar times omega fol all modes.

intriguing...

DaTario

 

[DaTario]

It is interesting to note that those spanishes guys which have dealt with SED have obtained some results that are quite intriguing. One of these results is the one in which one concludes that if you search for a vacuum field definition you would probably state that it is the field which should look the same whether you move or not across it. By forcing this condition you will arrive at an expression for the field which is nothing but the spectral composition of QM vacuum, i.e., then sum of one half of hbar times omega fol all modes.

intriguing...

DaTario

 

[jtbell]

I will give you the list of nobel price winners I know who have once refuted for long time the photon concept : Robert Millikan, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie (and since then it just became a habit).

Those people were active in physics fifty to a hundred years ago. Surely both theory and experiment have advanced greatly since then, especially in quantum physics. If you're going to appeal to authority, at least appeal to people who are still alive, and are aware of what has has happened since the days of Millikan et al.!

 

[Careful]

Those people were active in physics fifty to a hundred years ago. Surely both theory and experiment have advanced greatly since then, especially in quantum physics. If you're going to appeal to authority, at least appeal to people who are still alive, and are aware of what has has happened since the days of Millikan et al.!

I never appeal to authority, I simply wanted to point out that many intelligent persons have doubted the photon concept when it came off the ground. Experiment *cannot* demonstrate the necessity of the photon concept in any way; likewise all experiments I am aware of which should show photon behaviour (this relates to another thread - I did not react then since I was not sure about it at that time) are explained by (semi) classical maxwell theory (that is in SED). Look on the arxiv for Trevor Marshall and you shall find. You should not be under the illusion that the spectacular growth theoretical physics has undergone in the last 70 years, has not been without sacrifice of valuable alternative paths. Therefore, these ``oldies´´ are extremely valuable; I myself notice every day that any attempt to resolve a fundamental, longstanding problem in QM as we know it now brings me back 80 years in time (without actually realizing it immediately).

 

[DrChinese]

Experiment *cannot* demonstrate the necessity of the photon concept in any way; likewise all experiments I am aware of which should show photon behaviour (this relates to another thread - I did not react then since I was not sure about it at that time) are explained by (semi) classical maxwell theory (that is in SED).

There have been conclusive recent http://marcus.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf that demonstrate that photons are indivisible quanta. That is the definition, of course, and we now know what has been strongly suspected for nearly 100 years:

"While the classical, wavelike behavior of light (interference and diffraction) has been easily observed in undergraduate laboratories for many years, explicit observation of the quantum nature of light (i.e., photons) is much more difficult. For example, while well-known phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering strongly suggest the existence of photons, they are not definitive proof of their existence. Here we present an experiment, suitable for an undergraduate laboratory, that unequivocally demonstrates the quantum nature of light. Spontaneously downconverted light is incident on a beamsplitter and the outputs are monitored with single-photon counting detectors. We observe a near absence of coincidence counts between the two detectors—a result inconsistent with a classical wave model of light, but consistent with a quantum description in which individual photons are incident on the beamsplitter. More explicitly, we measured the degree of second-order coherence between the outputs to be g(2)(0)50.017760.0026, which violates the classical inequality g(2)(0)>1 by 377 standard deviations."

-Thorn, Beck, et al (2003)

Of course, there are some people who deny all experiments that don't go their way. And there are others who claim that they have a theory which is "as good as" oQM but makes no testable differentiation from oQM. (Hey, I might even have a 6 pack of those in my refrigerator. )

 

[vanesch]

-Thorn, Beck, et al (2003)
Of course, there are some people who deny all experiments that don't go their way. And there are others who claim that they have a theory which is "as good as" oQM but makes no testable differentiation from oQM. (Hey, I might even have a 6 pack of those in my refrigerator. )

Hi,

In all fairness it should be said that Marshall and Santos did publish a paper about SED and parametric down conversion where they claim that, as long as the detector quantum efficiency does not go beyond a certain threshold, SED makes identical predictions as QM - including this result.

I have to say that the paper was rather technical and I didn't understand its technicalities (you need to be very fluent in quantum optical definitions such as Glauber functions).

The gist of it is that Maxwell + a postulated background radiation of 1/2 hbar omega in each mode is the "true" radiation field, and we have detectors where we've made a "dark calibration", as such automatically subtracting the events that correspond to the 1/2 hbar omega noise by putting a "detection threshold".

He claims in the paper that if you do that, that you get out exactly the same results as quantum optics (on the condition that your detector has a limited quantum efficiency vs dark current, which according to his theory, is unavoidable, because of the necessary background subtraction and the threshold - if you do not want to be swamped by dark events)

I think they are here:
quant-ph/9711042

quant-ph/0203042

Unfortunately I'm not enough of a quantum optician to read and understand these things critically. I discussed before with some proponents of this theory and it occurred to me that they sometimes had a misunderstanding of quantum theory itself.
For instance, I'm not convinced that the "quantum up conversion" is not a quantum phenomenon, as the paper claims.

The problem I have with these guys is that you have the impression that you're talking to some religious fanatics (ok, they'll probably say the same :-) so it is hard to find out in what way they are objectively comparing the two theories and in what way they are pushing a programme.

Paul Kinsler studied the relationship between quantum optics and SED, and came to the conclusion that there are significant differences on 3rd order correlation functions.

http://www.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/

(his first paper on quantum optics).

So we shouldn't worry: these are different theories that are falsifiable and sooner or later experiment will distinguish them.

 

[DrChinese]

Hi,
In all fairness it should be said that Marshall and Santos did publish a paper about SED and parametric down conversion where they claim that, as long as the detector quantum efficiency does not go beyond a certain threshold, SED makes identical predictions as QM - including this result.
I have to say that the paper was rather technical and I didn't understand its technicalities (you need to be very fluent in quantum optical definitions such as Glauber functions).

I acknowledge that they CLAIM the equivalence - but that is their claim more than anything else. But that really doesn't make SED a classical theory, don't you think? Naturally, they are working to show that they can come up with results that mimic QM. But I really don't think that they can simultaneously deny the existence of photons and still make the higher order effects make sense. (I acknowledge that I am not sufficiently versed in SED anyway.) But I personally think it is a perversion of science to state that the existence of photons is not generally accepted. The experiments are good experiments and are considered conclusive. I would be the first to acknowledge that some people also doubt that the Earth is spherical or that men have walked on the moon. But I also consider it conclusive that these are true.

Careful stated that "Experiment *cannot* demonstrate the necessity of the photon concept in any way". I have provided a reference that shows this to be false, and I stand by the reference. IF SED can explain this experiment, then I would say - without any hesitation whatsoever - that SED is a theory of photons, and that any attempt to deny this is pure semantics. The existence of photons is proven to the same extent we know anything.

P.S. By the way, Kinsler's stuff is something I had seen already... as you had turned me onto him previously! I have noticed various papers which critique the Santos program about as fast as he can publish it. To this point, I fail to see where Santos has gotten a single useful new prediction from SED. In that respect, I fail to see where it is any different than any other interpretation of QM. Yes, I know it claims to be fundamentally different but interestingly, it always ends up at the same place.

 

[vanesch]

Careful stated that "Experiment *cannot* demonstrate the necessity of the photon concept in any way".

I think that that is a wrong statement in a certain sense, and a trivially correct statement in another sense

I think the statement is wrong in that, as you point out, that the photon concept gives rise to certain predictions of experimental outcomes. The Thorn experiment is such an experiment (even though I keep open the possibility that SED makes that prediction too). As such, the photon concept is a falsifiable concept that could eventually be shot down by experimental results.

But that brings us to the other point: of course it is trivially correct that no experiment can ever prove that the photon concept is *necessary*. No thing in science can be proven beyond any doubt that it is absolutely strictly necessary, and that is not how science works. Science works by falsification, not by demonstration. In the same way that it is impossible to demonstrate that the Earth is round beyond any doubt.

IF SED can explain this experiment, then I would say - without any hesitation whatsoever - that SED is a theory of photons, and that any attempt to deny this is pure semantics. The existence of photons is proven to the same extent we know anything.

I think that photons are only a concept of QM ; in SED, no explicit use of such a concept is made (but of course they "borrow" a result from QM, which is the vacuum noise in each mode). If SED and QM make the same predictions for some experiments, then these experiments are NOT interesting for this debate ; we should find experiments that make DIFFERENT predictions.

What the Thorn experiment however, concluded definitely is that *standard* Maxwellian optics does NOT work and that you need at least a non trivial "vacuum" description. And that it fits nicely with the intuitive concept of a particle-like photon.

However, there's something more. Quantum optics is part of a rather overall scheme that explains a lot of things, while SED is a theory, designed on purpose to explain quantum optics. SED is not (yet?) a part of an overall scheme that explains a wide variety of things. As such, SED and quantum optics do not play in the same category for the moment!

So, as the situation stands today, there is NO available alternative to the photon explanation that is part of an entire scheme of things that has been successful, from particle physics to atomic physics to optics using a unifying concept. That doesn't mean, of course, that one day SED will not be part of such a scheme, and clearly, experiment will be able to distinguish both in one way or another. But that's in the future.

 

[member 11137]

I think that that is a wrong statement in a certain sense, and a trivially correct statement in another sense
I think the statement is wrong in that, as you point out, that the photon concept gives rise to certain predictions of experimental outcomes. The Thorn experiment is such an experiment (even though I keep open the possibility that SED makes that prediction too). As such, the photon concept is a falsifiable concept that could eventually be shot down by experimental results.
But that brings us to the other point: of course it is trivially correct that no experiment can ever prove that the photon concept is *necessary*. No thing in science can be proven beyond any doubt that it is absolutely strictly necessary, and that is not how science works. Science works by falsification, not by demonstration. In the same way that it is impossible to demonstrate that the Earth is round beyond any doubt.
I think that photons are only a concept of QM ; in SED, no explicit use of such a concept is made (but of course they "borrow" a result from QM, which is the vacuum noise in each mode). If SED and QM make the same predictions for some experiments, then these experiments are NOT interesting for this debate ; we should find experiments that make DIFFERENT predictions.
What the Thorn experiment however, concluded definitely is that *standard* Maxwellian optics does NOT work and that you need at least a non trivial "vacuum" description. And that it fits nicely with the intuitive concept of a particle-like photon.
However, there's something more. Quantum optics is part of a rather overall scheme that explains a lot of things, while SED is a theory, designed on purpose to explain quantum optics. SED is not (yet?) a part of an overall scheme that explains a wide variety of things. As such, SED and quantum optics do not play in the same category for the moment!
So, as the situation stands today, there is NO available alternative to the photon explanation that is part of an entire scheme of things that has been successful, from particle physics to atomic physics to optics using a unifying concept. That doesn't mean, of course, that one day SED will not be part of such a scheme, and clearly, experiment will be able to distinguish both in one way or another. But that's in the future.

I like the way you try to find an equilibrium not between H+ and e- but between QM and SED... Everyone gets his chance, he must just prove it! For me there are two fascinating things concerning e- surrounding H+ in any manner (SED or QM) a) the permanence of this motion ... it is an invitation to think that superconductivity must play a role in a correct description of an atom ... b) the confinement: e- is preferentially obliged to stay (statisticaly or not) inside series of space-time enveloppes (as long as others important perturbations are not disturbing this beautiful construction) even if one can say that it has a theoretical probability p so and so (not equal to 0) to be in fact any where.
Is there any explanation for this?

 

[Careful]

However, there's something more. Quantum optics is part of a rather overall scheme that explains a lot of things, while SED is a theory, designed on purpose to explain quantum optics. SED is not (yet?) a part of an overall scheme that explains a wide variety of things. As such, SED and quantum optics do not play in the same category for the moment!
So, as the situation stands today, there is NO available alternative to the photon explanation that is part of an entire scheme of things that has been successful, from particle physics to atomic physics to optics using a unifying concept. That doesn't mean, of course, that one day SED will not be part of such a scheme, and clearly, experiment will be able to distinguish both in one way or another. But that's in the future.

My statement is of course trivially correct. What I wanted to say is that there is an alternative classical theory which can explain the experiment dr. Chinese refers to (an experiment which was also mentioned on the other thread and which I looked upon at that time). SED is for me an entirely CLASSICAL theory, the specific statistics of the ``vacuum´´ field could just be seen as an effective statistical description of a much more complicated classical phenomenon in the same way that classical statistical mechanics is indeed that, a statistical theory deduced from classical laws of nature which are too complicated to be treated otherwise. That SED is not complete yet, is a triviality which I acknowledged already pleanty of times. However, I invite everyone else to be as courtious regarding the weakness of the particle notion in a realistic quantum field theory. I do not think this is a discussion about semantics, a PHOTON is a PARTICLE (which is mathematically expressed through the use of the particle number operator), in SED the produced EM pulse is a (classical) WAVE.