Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Double slit experiment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I know this is an old thread, but I just read something on Quora which asserted that the concept of the photon is flawed, and a correction was made by Fermi, but Einstein's concept was generally accepted. This particular answer was given very recently, and states:
    Bert Willke, Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1963)
    Answered 2h ago
    We’re still carrying around the notion of photons 115 years after Einstein took it to be part of the photoelectric mechanism Einstein explained in his famous 1905–6 papers.

    The photoelectric effect is the quantized energy exchanges E=hf at light/matter interfaces disclosed by Max Planck in the 1900 paper* in which he created quantum mechanics, applied to the case the matter is bound electrons. In the equilibrium case considered by Planck in his 1900 paper, the energy exchanges are infinitely prolonged: f and the quanta E=hf are exact. The familiar extremely narrow observed electromagnetic absorption/emission lines created by these energy exchanges in real atoms show that the exchanges really do occur over a great many periods 1/f at each nominal radiation frequency f. Einstein must have known that, but despite that he somehow mistook Planck’s infinitely prolonged energy exchanges E=hf at light/matter interfaces, in this case light/bound electron interfaces, to be instantaneous. So, he concluded the exchange energy E=hf must be carried between emitter and absorber by tiny new unobservable quantized particles. Planck immediately corrected Einstein’s mistake. The photoelectric effect works exactly according to the straightforward mechanism disclosed by Planck in 1900. No tiny unobservable particles are involved.

    Over the next 20 years Einstein’s paper was widely read. Planck’s correction was forgotten. People gradually got to liking Einstein’s wave particle duality, and in 1926 started calling Einstein’s idea the photon. Another century has passed, and Einstein’s 1905 mistake is still with us. Teachers can get things moving in the right direction by pointing out to their students that the photon is just a misapprehension dating back to 1905.

    You don’t have to take Planck’s word for the untenability of the photon idea. Ask an astronomer:

    A parcel of light traveling from a star 10 billion light years away generally experiences virtually no loss of energy on its way to an astronomer’s detectors, but it does experience extreme redshift, drop in frequency, increase in wavelength and concomitant decrease in energy density. The wave trains are stretched out in the astronomer’s frame compared to the star’s frame. The same energy is transferred to the astronomer’s detectors over a much longer time period with a much greater number of energy transfers at much lower frequencies compared to the much smaller number of much higher frequency energy exchanges emitted at the star. Obviously, no fixed number of tiny particles carry any fixed energies E=hf between the star and the astronomer. The photon is not just unnecessary: it’s impossible in our universe.*Planck introduced what we now call Planck’s quantum of action h in this connection in that same 1900 paper.
    A more detailed document:
    http://aporia.byu.edu/pdfs/manchak-a...n_concepts.pdf
    .
    http://pauleschoen.com/pix/PM08_P76_P54.png
    Paul , P S Technology, Inc. and MrTibbs
    USA Maryland 21030

    Comment


    • #17
      That Einstein fellow was a dolt.
      Lynn (Huntsville, AL)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by PStechPaul View Post
        I know this is an old thread, but I just read something on Quora which asserted that the concept of the photon is flawed, and a correction was made by Fermi, but Einstein's concept was generally accepted. This particular answer was given very recently, and states:
        Bert Willke's specialty is acoustics. Any physicist working in the field of quantum optics or cavity QED will express a much different opinion on the subject.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tomato coupe View Post
          Bert Willke's specialty is acoustics. Any physicist working in the field of quantum optics or cavity QED will express a much different opinion on the subject.
          And your doctoral thesis was on??? Not only do we NOT know how little we know, we do not know how much of what we do know is true. As I find out daily. Re post sixteen, John Manchuk is a philosopher specialising in time and space. Who'da thunk? Read a couple of his papers, way beyond me.
          Last edited by Corbettprime; 07-04-2020, 03:11 PM. Reason: Added "Jonh Manchuk info

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Corbettprime View Post

            And your doctoral thesis was on??? Not only do we NOT know how little we know, we do not know how much of what we do know is true. As I find out daily. Re post sixteen, John Manchuk is a philosopher specialising in time and space. Who'da thunk? Read a couple of his papers, way beyond me.
            Thats the thing with Theoretical Science. JR
            My old yahoo group. Bridgeport Mill Group

            https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...port_mill/info

            Comment


            • #21
              I did a little digging and found that the author of the paper, to which I linked, was John Manchak of Brigham Young University (BYU), although he may also have been at UC Irvine. And he appears to be a professor of Philosophy, now at University of Washington. Some of his published papers:

              general relativity as a collection of collections of models
              on feyerabend, general relativity, and unreasonable universes
              malament-hogarth machines
              a remark on time machines in honor of howard stein
              why be regular?
              some no-hole spacetime properties are unstable
              space and time
              would two dimensions be world enough for spacetime?
              (information) paradox regained?
              on the inextendibility of spacetime
              on gödel and the ideality of time
              is the universe as large as it can be?
              supertasks
              time machines
              epistemic holes in spacetime
              time (hole?) machines
              on spacetime singularities, holes, and extensions
              the geometry of conventionality
              global spacetime structure
              essay review of malament (2012)
              time travel: why it may not pay to work out all the kinks
              what is a physically reasonable spacetime?
              no no-go: a remark on time machines
              on efficient time travel in gödel spacetime
              on the possibility of supertasks in general relativity
              on the existence of time machines in general relativity
              on force in cartesian physics
              is spacetime hole-free?
              can we know the global structure of spacetime?
              is prediction possible in general relativity?

              I think, given the strangeness of the universe we inhabit, that philosophy may be an important adjunct to our more conventional understanding. I had great difficulty understanding the concepts of "Modern Physics" as it was known when I took the class at JHU around 1969, because I tend to think in concrete visual and tactile terms. When I was still in elementary school I heard someone say that Einstein believed that space was curved, and my little brain protested that he must be wrong, because I could "see" that it was straight.
              http://pauleschoen.com/pix/PM08_P76_P54.png
              Paul , P S Technology, Inc. and MrTibbs
              USA Maryland 21030

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Corbettprime View Post

                And your doctoral thesis was on??? Not only do we NOT know how little we know, we do not know how much of what we do know is true. As I find out daily. Re post sixteen, John Manchuk is a philosopher specialising in time and space. Who'da thunk? Read a couple of his papers, way beyond me.
                My doctoral thesis was in quantum optics / laser spectroscopy., My thesis advisor was a Nobel Laureate. Any more questions?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PStechPaul View Post
                  I did a little digging and found that the author of the paper, to which I linked, was John Manchak ... he appears to be a professor of Philosophy ...
                  This really needs no comment ...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tomato coupe View Post

                    My doctoral thesis was in quantum optics / laser spectroscopy., My thesis advisor was a Nobel Laureate. Any more questions?
                    Congratulations, you might be qualified to debate with Dr. Manchuk. I know I'm not. I just try get as much as possible out of his papers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Corbettprime View Post

                      Congratulations, you might be qualified to debate with Dr. Manchuk. I know I'm not. I just try get as much as possible out of his papers.
                      Debating quantum physics with a philosopher is only slightly more useful than debating machining techniques with a philosopher.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Easy there. One should listen first and then give at least a bit of thought to what he is saying. The history of science is overflowing with experts who dismissed better theories with little or no thought.



                        Originally posted by tomato coupe View Post

                        Debating quantum physics with a philosopher is only slightly more useful than debating machining techniques with a philosopher.
                        Paul A.
                        SE Texas

                        Make it fit.
                        You can't win and there IS a penalty for trying!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Paul Alciatore View Post
                          Easy there. One should listen first and then give at least a bit of thought to what he is saying. The history of science is overflowing with experts who dismissed better theories with little or no thought.
                          While your suggestion is not without merit, the truth, based on my experience, is that many who fancy themselves philosophers include a truck load of fanciful invention for every idea worth examining. Because they feel free to expound on subjects that they know nothing about the signal to noise ratio makes it impractical to pay them more than polite notice.

                          Tomato Coupe on the other hand, seems to always know exactly what he's talking about.

                          Dan

                          At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and extra parts.

                          Location: SF East Bay.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Paul Alciatore View Post
                            Easy there. One should listen first and then give at least a bit of thought to what he is saying.
                            The idea that photons don't exist is overwhelmingly dismissed by the physics community, because there is a mountain of experimental evidence that refutes the idea. It is most often advanced by people that have no expertise in the relevant field, i.e. quantum optics. I've been working in the field for 30+ years, so I am not in the situation of giving it "little or no thought."

                            The history of science is overflowing with experts who dismissed better theories with little or no thought.
                            Most theories that were "dismissed by experts" in the past were actually dismissed by non-scientists. Those theories were not rejected because they disagreed with experimental data, but because they weren't consistent with the religious / philosophical views of the detractors. They ultimately became accepted theory because they were supported by experimental results.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Aside from physics and telling people they're wrong, what else do you do? Any machining? Why not post some projects and pics?
                              in Toronto Ontario - where are you?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mcgyver View Post
                                Aside from physics and telling people they're wrong, what else do you do? Any machining? Why not post some projects and pics?
                                I haven't told anyone on this forum that they're wrong. I simply pointed out that the majority of physicists don't agree with this particular idea, and that the idea is not supported by experimental evidence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X