Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Possibility of million entangled photons

  1. Aug 11, 2013 #1
    Entangled photon-pairs are being produced in labs with 'Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion' apparatus. While in the core of our sun gamma photons are being produced through nuclear fusion which then down-converted into myriad of low-energy photons. Is it possible that those myriad of low-energy photons which came from a single gamma photon are entangled?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2013 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This is a completely different process, and it does not produce entangled photons.
    No. That is not even a well-defined set. You cannot point to a photon and say "this came from photon x in the core" (even if we neglect practical problems).
     
  4. Aug 11, 2013 #3

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is strange. Please provide references to back this claim.

    Zz.
     
  5. Aug 13, 2013 #4
    There 187 references in the 'Sun' article of the wikipedia and some external links wherein peer reviewed resources could be chosen. That quote was paraphrased from the 'core' section of the aforementioned sun article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
     
  6. Aug 13, 2013 #5

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    They are not "down converted" into lower energy photons. They are simply absorbed, and then part of that energy is re-emitted as lower energy photons. I saw nothing in the article from wikipedia that had anything to do with Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion.
     
  7. Aug 13, 2013 #6
    "Each gamma ray in the Sun's core is converted into several million photons of visible light before escaping into space"... copied from the last paragraph of the 'core' section of the aforementioned wikipedia sun article. If that is incorrect, somebody qualified must edit it asap before it mislead some kids.

    I just mentioned SPDC apparatus to remind everyone about the concept of photon splitting before we dive into the sun's core.
     
  8. Aug 13, 2013 #7

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    If you are using Wikipedia as your primary source of information, you should be worried.

    Zz.
     
  9. Aug 13, 2013 #8
    That's why those who are earnest in their research must sift through the reference section of the article and chose appropriate peer-reviewed materials.
     
  10. Aug 13, 2013 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I could say the same to you. Why don't you pick an "appropriate peer-reviewed" material, and use that as a reference, rather than a blanket link to a Wikipedia entry?

    Zz.
     
  11. Aug 13, 2013 #10
    Who knows maybe there is someone here who is really in helio physics who is qualified to refute or confirm my statements, and provide a widely accepted reference in that field of research.
     
  12. Aug 13, 2013 #11

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, those who are "earnest in their research" would be researching peer-reviewed materials to begin with! I cannot imagine any "earnest" researcher going to Wikipedia for research- any more than to a dictionary or encyclopedia.
     
  13. Aug 13, 2013 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    No, it doesn't work that way, and certainly it doesn't work that way in science.

    If you have something, then YOU are the one who has to convinced the rest of us that it is valid. It is NOT our responsibility to prove you wrong.

    The problem here is that my request for you to show supporting sources has not been fulfilled. Pointing to some vague Wikipedia entry does not pass in scientific publishing, and yes, we DO require in this forum that the quality of our discussion approaches as closely to scientific discussion as possible.

    Either you immediately provide valid references here, or this thread is done. You have been given SEVERAL chances to do this already.

    Zz.
     
  14. Aug 13, 2013 #13

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    I use Wikipedia and dictionaries often. But I agree that the onus is on Romulo to follow the forum rules.

    The photons coming from the sun are not generally entangled. Drakkith explained why in post 5.
     
  15. Aug 13, 2013 #14
    Yes, science is about the established rules of empirical, stable and demonstrable protocol. Gamma photon splitting into myriads of low-energy photons is unfalsifiable hence not science. It's okay to me if you remove this post :-)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook