Understanding Photon Absorption in Radio Wavelengths: 3 Key Questions Explored

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ponderer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photon
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the absorption of photons by antennas, particularly in the radio wavelength region. It is clarified that the entire antenna absorbs the photon rather than a single electron, challenging the notion that individual particles are responsible for absorption. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle complicates the ability to define the exact moment or speed of photon absorption, suggesting that while spikes may be detected on an oscilloscope, they do not represent a sudden "jerk" of individual particles. Additionally, the conversation touches on the collective behavior of electrons and the sufficiency of Maxwell's equations for understanding antenna behavior, rather than relying solely on quantum mechanics. Overall, the complexities of photon absorption and measurement in antennas highlight the interplay between classical and quantum physics.
  • #31
Ponderer said:
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
bhobba said:
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. :)
 
  • #33
bhobba said:
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.
 
  • #34
Ponderer said:
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
 
  • #35
Ponderer said:
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.

Ponderer said:
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
 
  • #36
bhobba said:
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?
 
  • #37
bhobba said:
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. ;)
 
  • #38
Ponderer said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #39
bhobba said:
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.
 
  • #40
bhobba said:
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.
 
  • #41
Ponderer said:
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:

Nugatory said:
... 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
 
  • #42
Ponderer said:
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
 
  • #43
bhobba said:
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
 
  • #44
Thread closed.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
10K