Interpretation of Light Beam Intensity in QM

Jilvin
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I am starting to become confused when reading about quantum mechanics and its treatment of photons. I heard somewhere (I can't recall where) that the characteristic intensity of a photon beam was give by I = E/\omega, where \omega is the angular frequency of the beam. However, I can't seem to reconcile this with the fact that, since the energy of a photon is given in quantum mechanics as E = \hbar\omega, that the intensity I would simply reduce to \hbar in every single case.

This doesn't seem correct at all, as the entire study of squeezed coherent states of light is apparently based upon studies of light beams with high differences between phase angle uncertainty and intensity uncertainty...

What am I interpreting incorrectly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nevermind, I think I've got it now. The intensity uncertainty is only valid for *large* photon numbers. Here's what I mean. In the study of squeezed light, the uncertainty ΔIΔη≥\hbar/2 is important (where I is the intensity and η is the phase). I couldn't comprehend just what ΔI (indeterminacy in intensity) meant because if characteristic intensity is given by I=E/ω; and for any *single* photon the energy E is given by \hbarω, then it would appear that ΔI = 0 because it would always equal \hbar. However, I didn't consider that the above uncertainty principle was for large photon numbers, so that the intensity given by N\hbar for N photons would be uncertain in the *number of photons* emitted in the beam.

Thus, the only possibility for ΔI making any sense as a quantity was if the photon quantity varied between measurement. I did some checking, and this is indeed the case. You can close this post now.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top