Photon Size: Direction & Probability

[LorentzR]

You seem to have a very strange way of making a position measurement, and then telling me something else about it. And why are we now talking about a "momentum" along the plane of the screen? This isn't a discussion about the HUP!Zz.

I don’t think you can consider quantum interactions without considering the effects of uncertainty.

I used the above illustration to show that the electron can be in more than one place at anyone time.In the ARPES experiment, apart from the measured value, all other values of momentum are canceled out through the electron’s self interference. Because of the free path between the target and the detector! This does not mean the electron does not possesses other values of momentum and position it is just the experimental set up ensures they do not affect the outcome by allowing for their destructive interference. If any object were to be placed near to the apparent path of the electron then the symmetry of the wave pattern would be disturbed and the results compromised.

The "momentum" that I referred to is the momentum measurement in ARPES where the POSITION of the electron hitting the detector is equivalent to the in-plane momentum of the electron. In fact, it is the in-plane momentum of the electron while it was in the crystal material that emitted the electron in the first place. The resolution of the position corresponds directly to the resolution of the momentum. Refer to any of the latest ARPES papers on high-Tc superconductors, for example, since T. Valla's paper in Science in 1999. You'll see something that looks like my avatar!Zz.

I think here you should be referring to the angular distribution of the detector’s responses

Have you noticed that not once have you made any direct reference to anything published or actual experimental work to support what you are saying? Why is that? In addition, when was the last time you actually had to make a photon or electron position detection?

I also notice that you could not tell me how many high energy experimentalists you have surveyed regarding their detection methods. Does that mean that many of the criteria you impose on me does not apply to you?

Zz.

That because it’s all basic Physics! My only deviation is to have asserted that the weight evidence suggests that pairs of spatially extended quantum entities become “super-positioned” and interact directly and the result of their interaction produces a macroscopically measurable event at a specific position relative to our reference grids.

Sorry but this has no citation it just jumped out of my head; so where’s the best place for all the info on bunching and anti bunching?

 

[ZapperZ]

I don’t think you can consider quantum interactions without considering the effects of uncertainty.

I used the above illustration to show that the electron can be in more than one place at anyone time.

Not when it is detected! When I detect it, it has a well-defined position for that one single measurement!

In the ARPES experiment, apart from the measured value, all other values of momentum are canceled out through the electron’s self interference. Because of the free path between the target and the detector! This does not mean the electron does not possesses other values of momentum and position it is just the experimental set up ensures they do not affect the outcome by allowing for their destructive interference. If any object were to be placed near to the apparent path of the electron then the symmetry of the wave pattern would be disturbed and the results compromised.

Er.. say what? Where did you get this? What canceled out?

I think here you should be referring to the angular distribution of the detector’s responses

This is very strange. Have you looked at an electron analyzer and figure out what exactly it is that you're talking about?

That because it’s all basic Physics! My only deviation is to have asserted that the weight evidence suggests that pairs of spatially extended quantum entities become “super-positioned” and interact directly and the result of their interaction produces a macroscopically measurable event at a specific position relative to our reference grids.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I suppose if you muddle it enough, I'd lose contact with what the issue is all about. You're succeeding.

Sorry but this has no citation it just jumped out of my head;

Ah, now things have some explanation on why they are not making any sense.

so where’s the best place for all the info on bunching and anti bunching?

H. Paul, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 1061 (1982)

Zz.

 

[lightarrow]

I'm sure by now that it would have gotten through you that I am not going to accept something just because you said so. Show me an exact citation of such formulation, please.

I believed it was already established.

Again, check how the dynamics of all the detected particles are done in various experiments and tell me that their ability to reconstruct the particle's path leading to the detected spot is consistent with that you are saying. You may start by analyzing all those ARPES experiments.

Which particle's path? In the thread " Why doesn't QM make particles zig-zag as they travel?" Marlon explained that the line we see in, e.g., a bubble chamber, it's not the particle's trajectory.

This thread should not be turned into a "photon doesn't exist", especially when you have not offered (or are even aware of) any of those experiments that explicitly invoke the photon picture in the physics.

Zz.

If you explained what you mean with "multiphoton emission" I could express my opinion on the impossibility to explain it without the notion of photon. A related question: how the experiment of "quantum beats" is interpreted in the photon's paradigm?

 

[ZapperZ]

I believed it was already established.Which particle's path? In the thread " Why doesn't QM make particles zig-zag as they travel?" Marlon explained that the line we see in, e.g., a bubble chamber, it's not the particle's trajectory.

But we are not talking about a "bubble chamber" (that is a whole different matter here and I can easily point to you an even clearly tracking of single-electron motion, which I had already cited and commented on). So don't change the subject AGAIN!

I have no idea what this argument is all about. For some odd reason, you somehow dispute that a detection of a photon, electron, neutron, etc... on some detector somehow cannot be extrapolated back onto a path of where it came from? I'm not talking about BEFORE detection. I'm talking about from the moment of detection.

If this is exactly what you are claiming, then as I've said before, please write a rebuttal to all those astrophysics and high energy physics papers and tell them that their vertex reconstruction is outright false. Other than that, I have no patience left in arguing about the validity of photons because you have made no attempt at doing what I asked you to do, which is to find alternative explanations for all the experiments that I have mentioned.

And I am utterly puzzled why you can't find these experiments yourself. Google Scholar doesn't work for you? I gave you already a review paper on the anti-bunching experiments. Here are the multiphoton papers:

U. Hofer et al. Science v.277, p.1480 (1997).
A. Damascelli et al., Phys. Rev. B v.54, p.6031 (1996).
M. Aeschlimann et al., J. Chem. Phys. v.102, p.8606 (1995).
K. Giesen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. v55, p.300 (1985).

Until you can come up with a non-photon formulation to describe all this, I suggest you devote your energy it rather than wasting it on here, because as you already know, I'm not going to buy it. And oh, just in case you think I'm just blowing off stuff I barely know, I too have made measurements involving such multiphoton effects, on magnesium photocathodes.

P.S. I noticed that you didn't answer my question about when the last time you looked at an electron analyzer used in ARPES experiments. Why is that?

Zz.

 

[pervect]

This thread is both very long, and seems to be going in about a zillion different directions. Having received complaints about it, I'm going to take the liberty of locking it, because it just doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and because some of the directions the thread is going in seem to be violating our PF guidelines.

Specifically, we aren't here to defend mainstream science, we are here to explain it.

I will therefore ask people who think that photons are unnecessary to please refrain from posting statements of their opinions unless they can quote a peer reviewed published paper, textbook, or other source which supports this as a current subject of scientific debate in accordance with our guidelines.

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

I'd also like to encourage people to track down some of the references that have already been quoted if at all possible.

Some other people seem to perhaps have questions which fall within our guidelines, which unfortunately don't seem to be very clear. I'd like to encourage these people to post their questions in some other thread, as long as they are questions that fall within our guidelines.

Meanwhile because this thread is just so long and so incoherent, I'm going to put it out of its misery.