Why do we need a photon to mediate the electromagnetic force?

[vanesch]

So, some kind of minimum philosophy of the scientific method is IMO not completely out of place.

Those who know me a bit would also know that I don't shun a bit of philosophy! After all, the old name for physics was natural philosophy, which I think was a completely appropriate name.

However, people asking for whether "photons really exist" and say that "scientists claim that they proved that photons exist" are wrong, seem to forget their philosophy themselves, because otherwise they would remember that philosophically, one cannot ultimately prove the existence of anything, and that every form of ontological claim is always based upon some hypothesis.

So one should always take with a grain of salt, and recognize that when a scientist says that "thing A exists", then he really means that *within the currently available paradigm, if we make the corresponding ontological hypotheses that go with that, then we have strong indications that thing A exists*.

In other words, when talking about photons, we place ourselves already in the paradigm of quantum field theory (which is at the origin of the concept of photon), and we make the ontological hypothesis that goes with quantum field theory (that means, that we postulate that its basic entities have some ontology to themselves). Of course, the question of ontology only makes sense as long as the observational predictions of the paradigm are in agreement with what we perceive. So a scientist inquiring whether "photons really exist" tries simply to make as many observations as she can, tries to use the scientific method to discard competing theories/paradigms, and when, amongst a reasonable set of paradigms she can think of, only the paradigm containing the theoretical concept of "photon" survives the experimental confrontation, then that scientist says that "photons seem to exist", simply because no non-photon containing paradigm one could think easily of, remains in the competition. That doesn't exclude of course that such a non-photon containing paradigm will be found one day, and it is still based upon the ontological hypothesis of the one and single known surviving paradigm, but nevertheless, it is not a bad argument, because it says:
"of all paradigms we could reasonably think of as of today, only one seems to hold up against all experimental data we have today, so if we take that paradigm, and we make the ontological hypotheses that go with it, then we arrive at the conclusion that the existence of the photon is part of that paradigm".

That doesn't mean that tomorrow, things cannot be different. But as of today, it seems the best/most practical thing to do. That's all that such a claim of "the photon exists" really means.

This also implies a fundamental level of humbleness as to save us from thinking that we "proove things" when we in fact are just guessing. I think the difference between a scientific guess and a random guess is that the scientific guess is the supposedly the BEST guess, but that's not to mistake it for the "truth", or to tink that the supposedly best guess, in fact IS the best guess.

Yes, but that should be clear from the start.

 

[LorentzR]

I have thought about this also, and I've come to ask the following question: "does the photon exist before it is detected?" There's a lot of thought behind this question -- can you examine other events to see if a photon has been created, or can there be any evidence of its existence before it interacts with a detector? I think the electromagnetic field strength indicates the probability that a photon might be detected, but I also think that a photon's "existence" is a just another quantum property that cannot be measured until it is detected -- i.e., when its wave function collapses. So personally, I don't think it "exists" before it is detected.

(Incidentally, I apologize for jumping in so late in the discussion, but I've wanted to ask this question for a long time, and I like the way lightarrow thinks (I too am impressed by the anti-bunching evidence)).

So, if you guys aren't sick of this question already, I'd like to divide the original question into two: does a photon exist before its wave function collapses (i.e., before it's detected), and does it exist when it is detected?

The honest answer on both counts is we don't know.

However you may be interested in this attachment which purports to be reductionistic hypothesis. It explains the development of the light wave and the impulsive nature of quantum interactions without involving a photon

 

[vanesch]

So, if you guys aren't sick of this question already, I'd like to divide the original question into two: does a photon exist before its wave function collapses (i.e., before it's detected), and does it exist when it is detected?

Look at my previous post:
"to exist" is something you decide for yourself, as you decide upon your favorite color. The only requirement is that for something to be decided by you to exist, it has to be a part of a paradigm that is not in contradiction with observation, and clearly, up to now, photons are not in contradiction to observation. So you're FREE to decide whether you'd like them to "exist" or not. But it is highly practical to do so.

If you find this strange, I can just as well decide to say that nothing of what we call the world exists. I'm a solipsist in that case. But it is not a very practical world view.

 

[Fra]

Those who know me a bit would also know that I don't shun a bit of philosophy! After all, the old name for physics was natural philosophy, which I think was a completely appropriate name.

I am new on here so I really have't gotten to know anyone on here. My comments wasn't meant as "personal" in any case. For what I know, my comments may come out as embarrasingly obvious and redundant. If so, I'll attribute that to my ignorance of this environment But I'm learning.

Yes, but that should be clear from the start.

Yes it should. I guess I pointed what should be obvious out because in my experience not everyone in general appears (to me) to think this is clear, rather something that is kept in denial My point was that an explicit acknowledgment of the actual limitations may in fact be constructive.

/Fredrik

 

[Asiadeep]

hahahahah! you guys absolutely crack me up man
opps *nuclear explosion*

 

[lightarrow]

hahahahah! you guys absolutely crack me up man
opps *nuclear explosion*

That is to say what?

 

[bruce2g]

Look at my previous post:
"to exist" is something you decide for yourself, as you decide upon your favorite color. The only requirement is that for something to be decided by you to exist, it has to be a part of a paradigm that is not in contradiction with observation, and clearly, up to now, photons are not in contradiction to observation. So you're FREE to decide whether you'd like them to "exist" or not. But it is highly practical to do so.

If you find this strange, I can just as well decide to say that nothing of what we call the world exists. I'm a solipsist in that case. But it is not a very practical world view.

Well, I'm willing to just posit that measurements exist, and that the things doing the measuring (meters, photographic plates, counters, etc.) exist. I think that most people are willing to do this.

I really think that it's easier to understand quantum physics if you say that the photon does not exist until it is measured. So you don't have to say 'it goes through both slits' because it doesn't actually exist until it falls out of the wave and interacts with a detector.

The other reason I would say that it doesn't exist until it is detected is this: you cannot detect its creation. As near as I can tell, there's just no way to say 'a photon was created at this point at this time' (or, even that 'a single photon was created within a certain dxdydz within a certain dt.') You might be able to say that an approximate number of photons was created (by the sun, for example), but that just tells you that there's a probability that photons will be detected.

I've looked for experiments where people have detected the creation of a single photon (with certainty, and without actually detecting the photon itself), and I haven't been able to find one. Of course, if someone knows of one, then I guess I'd have to say that a photon can exist before it is measured. But if no such experiment exists, then I would like to propose that it's because the photon does not exist before it is detected.

So, since there is really no evidence that any individual photons exist before they are detected, and since there actually is evidence that they don't exist before detection (interference) , I think it's a pretty safe bet to say they don't exist until they are detected.

It seems to me that this point of view makes some of the quantum weirdness easier to swallow, so unless someone can come up with a big hole in my assumptions I think I'll stick with this one for the time being.

 

[ZapperZ]

The other reason I would say that it doesn't exist until it is detected is this: you cannot detect its creation. As near as I can tell, there's just no way to say 'a photon was created at this point at this time' (or, even that 'a single photon was created within a certain dxdydz within a certain dt.') You might be able to say that an approximate number of photons was created (by the sun, for example), but that just tells you that there's a probability that photons will be detected.

I've looked for experiments where people have detected the creation of a single photon (with certainty, and without actually detecting the photon itself), and I haven't been able to find one. Of course, if someone knows of one, then I guess I'd have to say that a photon can exist before it is measured. But if no such experiment exists, then I would like to propose that it's because the photon does not exist before it is detected.

So, since there is really no evidence that any individual photons exist before they are detected, and since there actually is evidence that they don't exist before detection (interference) , I think it's a pretty safe bet to say they don't exist until they are detected.

It seems to me that this point of view makes some of the quantum weirdness easier to swallow, so unless someone can come up with a big hole in my assumptions I think I'll stick with this one for the time being.

Replace everything you just typed here with "electron", or "proton", etc. Do you also think that an electron "doesn't exist" (whatever that means) until it is detected?

Furthermore, if what you said about single photon is true, then single-photon sources are collosal lies. Devices that produce single-photon on demand should be shot down to pieces.

Zz.

 

[bruce2g]

Replace everything you just typed here with "electron", or "proton", etc. Do you also think that an electron "doesn't exist" (whatever that means) until it is detected?

Furthermore, if what you said about single photon is true, then single-photon sources are collosal lies. Devices that produce single-photon on demand should be shot down to pieces.

Zz.

Thanks for your questions and the reference to the single-photon sources. Well, the electrons and protons have mass. Photons are different -- they have no mass, so without mass the case for them existing is a bit weaker. (They do not have time either, hmm, this is suspicious). Also, it looks like they don't have any size, but no one knows for sure. So, since they appear to lack some existential qualities that the other particles have, I'll just stick with the the photons for now.

Thanks for pointing out the single photon sources. I wasn't aware that they had gotten so good at reducing the probability of doubled photons. In one form of single photon sourcing, a pulse excites an atom or molecule and bumps an electron up to a higher energy state. When the electron comes back down to base level, a photon is emitted. Note, however, that you don't know exactly when the photon is emitted - the time to return to ground state is a random variable. The probability that the electron drops down to its base state gets pretty close to 1.0 pretty fast, but it never actually reaches 1, so you never really know for sure that the photon was created until you detect it.

I still maintain that the word "exists" is the wrong word to use before the wave function collapses. In fact, most people call it a 'wave packet' instead of a 'photon' during this phase of its evolution. You could try and say that 'it exists as a wave packet' which gives a probability distribution that it'll be detected at certain points in time and space; but note that you won't get a probability of 1 for any finite region.

My logic is like this: a 'photon' is a particle. However, before the wave function collapses, light is a wave, so the photon particles do not exist yet.

 

[vanesch]

Thanks for your questions and the reference to the single-photon sources. Well, the electrons and protons have mass.

The question is: why is "mass" such an important criterium to decide whether something exists or not ? Does the EM field exist, and in that case, what is its mass ? Does a classical gravitational force exist, and if so, what's its mass ? Do the natural numbers exist, and if so, what's their mass ?

You see, an arbitrary theoretical concept (mass in this case) can never be a criterium for ontological existence! After all, "mass" is simply a parameter that enters a dispersion relation, as in:

E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

(a relationship between energy and 3-momentum).

For some things, we have to use m different from 0, for other things we can use m = 0, and maybe for even other things, who knows, the dispersion relation might even not exist in this form (but that would be a serious problem for relativity then).

Photons are different -- they have no mass, so without mass the case for them existing is a bit weaker. (They do not have time either, hmm, this is suspicious). Also, it looks like they don't have any size, but no one knows for sure. So, since they appear to lack some existential qualities that the other particles have, I'll just stick with the the photons for now.

That's reasoning by analogy: because many things have property X, things that seem to have not property X "don't exist" then... You could apply that also, say, to electric charge. Do neutrons exist ? Or to baryon number. Do electrons exist ? Or to, I don't know, price. Things that don't have a price don't exist, say. Or things I CAN'T SEE don't exist. In that case, ONLY photons exist!

You see, what I'm trying to point out is that your choice of criteria of having a certain physical property to decide whether something ontologically exist, is rather arbitrary!

I still maintain that the word "exists" is the wrong word to use before the wave function collapses.

Do the particles in your body have a wavefunction ? Do *you* have a wavefunction ? When does it collapse ? When do YOU exist ?

 

[Anonym]

Do the natural numbers exist, and if so, what's their mass ?

Come on! You urgently need the summer vacations.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Fra]

It seems to me that this point of view makes some of the quantum weirdness easier to swallow, so unless someone can come up with a big hole in my assumptions I think I'll stick with this one for the time being.

If you think quantum mechanics is weird, the human brain weirdness must bug you badly?

If person A observes person B, he can see it's actions, but not his thoughts. Are B's thoughts real, relative to A? Are A's thoughts real relative to A? For A to predict B, he might try to estimate B's thoughts, assuming he has an idea what a given though with yield for kind of action, are to conclude what the action will be. He may find that the model is decent, and gives A an competitive advantage. But what's real and what's not. Does it matter? It's obviously "real" in the sense that we are discussing it - ie considering the possibility is seemingly useful at least.

It seems to me that at the instant you ask, is it real? You instantly admitt that at least it's _possibly_ real. Which means the possibility should be real, relative to the questioner, right?

Or if you instead not ask is it real, you ask is it "physical". Then I think that anything physical needs qualifying evidence and therefore there must be some duality between physical and information theoretic views. For example one way toy that a possibility must have a physical memory representation (the state of a physical system is indeed a physical memory device).

So I like think, that answer to the is it real and is it physical is that it doesn't matter. The problem withing using the word physical is that you might tend to associate to newtionan mechanistic models, this creates a confusion that isn't needed.

I think it's almost a contradiction that we as humans insist in thinking in mechanistic terms, when we are operated by such an amazing brain. Reflecting over my own thinking has given me new insights even into physics. The intuitive picture for a human is that we consume information, but we don't know how. We are in the middle of the information theoretic machinery, and have an intuitive understanding. But to give a physical, chemical understanding of exactly how the brain works is extremely complex. Yet for the one beeing inside it, it all seems so obvious? Obvious enough to hardly require proof? :) How come?

/Fredrik

 

[Careful]

The question is: why is "mass" such an important criterium to decide whether something exists or not ? Does the EM field exist, and in that case, what is its mass ? Does a classical gravitational force exist, and if so, what's its mass ? Do the natural numbers exist, and if so, what's their mass ?

Because mass couples to (and is the origin of) everything (except for the natural numbers, they live in the Platonic world ) : GR simply is a universal (in the sense of unavoidable) theory.

You see, an arbitrary theoretical concept (mass in this case) can never be a criterium for ontological existence! After all, "mass" is simply a parameter that enters a dispersion relation, as in:

E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

(a relationship between energy and 3-momentum).

Mass was so arbitrary that everything around us reveals its existence Without kidding, if you want a *closed* theory for the universe, then something like a mass field is again unavoidable. I don't say you need a mass parameter (which is very un Mach like) - mass can be an averaged quantity of a dynamical field (a bit a la Brans Dicke - but better). The mass parameter certainly is a flat space approximation, I agree with that.

For some things, we have to use m different from 0, for other things we can use m = 0, and maybe for even other things, who knows, the dispersion relation might even not exist :in this form (but that would be a serious problem for relativity then).

No, it wouldn't be any problem for gravity (for special relativity yes, but for GR no).

 

[lightarrow]

The question is: why is "mass" such an important criterium to decide whether something exists or not ? Does the EM field exist, ... ?

You are right, but I think we should consider this:
we have some apparatus that we call "source of EM field", another one that we call "detector" and void in between; then we make some experiments and we see that, sometimes, the detector's response in time is a signal that increases and then decreases. We interpret this saying that an EM wave packet arrived to the detector. Independently of how can this last statement be questionable (of course it is), could we have the same effect with a single photon?

 

[lightarrow]

The other reason I would say that it doesn't exist until it is detected is this: you cannot detect its creation. As near as I can tell, there's just no way to say 'a photon was created at this point at this time' (or, even that 'a single photon was created within a certain dxdydz within a certain dt.') You might be able to say that an approximate number of photons was created (by the sun, for example), but that just tells you that there's a probability that photons will be detected.

I've looked for experiments where people have detected the creation of a single photon (with certainty, and without actually detecting the photon itself), and I haven't been able to find one. Of course, if someone knows of one, then I guess I'd have to say that a photon can exist before it is measured. But if no such experiment exists, then I would like to propose that it's because the photon does not exist before it is detected.

Probably it's possible to detect an atom's recoil after the emission.

 

[Mentz114]

If the photon is given the same onotological status as the massive particles, then it must be given a wave function which can be interpreted as describing the evolution of probablity amplitude whose square gives the probablity of finding the photon. There are many papers in the journals and arXiv postulating a wave function for the photon ( refs supplied if required).

They range from a 3D bispinor formulation that looks like the Dirac equation to the unmodified Maxwell equations. They all have an interesting issue of interpretation because the 'probablity amplitude' for the photon is just the actual physical intensity of the light, which exists in 3D co-ordinate space, while QM probablity amplitude is not physical and lives in a space that can have infinite dimensionality.

This is hardly seamless. So what is the wave function of the photon ?

[later ]
I can some way to answering my own question ( but this is second quantisation, not a single photon wave equation).

This is how the EM field is quantised in Gerry and Knight, 'Introductory Quantum Optics' (2005)

Start with a single mode field which satisfies Maxwells equations and boundary conditions -

$$E_x(z,t) = (2\omega^2/(V\epsilon_0))^{\frac{1}{2}}q(t)sin(kz)$$

$$B_y(z,t) = \frac{\mu_0\epsilon_0}{k}(2\omega^2/(V\epsilon_0))^{\frac{1}{2}}\dot{q}(t)cos(kz)$$

where q(t) is a time dependent factor having dimension length.

Which gives Hamiltonian -

$$H = \int dV[ \epsilon_0E_x^2(z,t) + \frac{1}{\mu_0}B_y^2(z,t)]$$

This is the Hamiltonian of a HO and is quantised in the usual way by defining creation and annihilation
operators satisfying

$$[a,a^\dagger ] = 1$$

The eigenstates of the creation operator presumably form a complete basis.

 

[vanesch]

Because mass couples to (and is the origin of) everything (except for the natural numbers, they live in the Platonic world )

You got my pun. It's another way of looking upon ontological questions.

: GR simply is a universal (in the sense of unavoidable) theory.

Of course, given that we don't have a satisfactory theory which gives us GR and quantum theory as limiting cases, we should leave GR out of the picture for the moment when discussing a potential ontology of "photons" which are theoretical concepts of QFT (which doesn't contain GR).

 

[vanesch]

If person A observes person B, he can see it's actions, but not his thoughts. Are B's thoughts real, relative to A? Are A's thoughts real relative to A? For A to predict B, he might try to estimate B's thoughts, assuming he has an idea what a given though with yield for kind of action, are to conclude what the action will be. He may find that the model is decent, and gives A an competitive advantage. But what's real and what's not. Does it matter? It's obviously "real" in the sense that we are discussing it - ie considering the possibility is seemingly useful at least.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: "ontology" (saying that concept X is "real") is a convenient way of thinking, if concept X is a helpful thing in helping us to organize our conception of how the world (and ultimately our sensations) behaves.

So in as much as "photons" are helpful concepts in explaining lab experiments, they are "real" (possibly in a similar way as natural numbers are, when dealing with accountants ).

So I like think, that answer to the is it real and is it physical is that it doesn't matter. The problem withing using the word physical is that you might tend to associate to newtionan mechanistic models, this creates a confusion that isn't needed.

Exactly

 

[Careful]

Of course, given that we don't have a satisfactory theory which gives us GR and quantum theory as limiting cases, we should leave GR out of the picture for the moment when discussing a potential ontology of "photons" which are theoretical concepts of QFT (which doesn't contain GR).

It might very well be that photons are derived concepts in a field theory of inertia : actually what I argued is that for consistency of *any* theory, it should be embedded into a theory of inertia.

 

[Careful]

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: "ontology" (saying that concept X is "real") is a convenient way of thinking, if concept X is a helpful thing in helping us to organize our conception of how the world (and ultimately our sensations) behaves.

So in as much as "photons" are helpful concepts in explaining lab experiments, they are "real" (possibly in a similar way as natural numbers are, when dealing with accountants ).

Euh, for an accountant, the physical configuration on the sheet of paper (if he is old fashioned), which can be interpreted as a natural number, is real (as is hopefully the reason why this configuration has been written down ).

Exactly

Euh who says that ``Newtonian´´ mechanistic models cause confusion ? What do you think the (classical) string - gauge correspondence is about?
How do you classify all (succesful) attempts to approximate Maxwell's theory by a spinning fluid theory?
Even within quantum theory itself, one has local ``mechanistic'' models to produce fermions from bosons (as nonlocal stringy configurations) - these are highly useful and have been developped mainly in the 80ties.

But I agree that field theory is a better way of thinking.

 

[Anonym]

You got my pun. It's another way of looking upon ontological questions.

So in as much as "photons" are helpful concepts in explaining lab experiments, they are "real" (possibly in a similar way as natural numbers are, when dealing with accountants ).

No. The natural numbers are not real. It is their internal inconsistency with the real, objectively observed outside world led to the major developments in the mathematics. It is their internal inconsistency with the real, objectively observed outside world led to the real numbers (field). And Julius Wilhelm Richard Dedekind, Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen, vierde editie, Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn (1912) completed the story originally started by your philosophical friends which called them “irrational”.

The philosophy is not a science. The science understands the empirical facts through the adequate mathematical formulation and solution of the problems posted by the observations.

You statement is not so innocent. The people that investigate now the problems of information do not distinguish between the information and the information rate. Then the numbers have mass.

Regards, Dany.

 

[lightarrow]

If person A observes person B, he can see it's actions, but not his thoughts.

To make this statement you should have a definition of "thought"; otherwise we could as well say that measuring a specific chemical/electrical brain's activity we can have a reading of thoughts; it would be just a technological problem then, that is, you couldn't prove that reading thoughts is theoretically impossible (as instead in the case of detecting a flying low-energy photon).

 

[Anonym]

I still maintain that the word "exists" is the wrong word to use before the wave function collapses.In fact, most people call it a 'wave packet' instead of a 'photon' during this phase of its evolution. You could try and say that 'it exists as a wave packet' which gives a probability distribution that it'll be detected at certain points in time and space; but note that you won't get a probability of 1 for any finite region.

My logic is like this: a 'photon' is a particle. However, before the wave function collapses, light is a wave, so the photon particles do not exist yet.

You have no idea what you are talking about since you don’t know math.
exp(i*phi)=cos(phi)+i*sin(phi). It is two component wave packet and it is QM all about. If “wave packet” don’t exist “during this phase of its evolution”, collapse of what you have in mind?

Regards, Dany.

 

[vanesch]

No. The natural numbers are not real. It is their internal inconsistency with the real, objectively observed outside world led to the major developments in the mathematics. It is their internal inconsistency with the real, objectively observed outside world led to the real numbers (field). And Julius Wilhelm Richard Dedekind, Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen, vierde editie, Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn (1912) completed the story originally started by your philosophical friends which called them “irrational”.

We could go on a long discussion here about the "reality" of the real number system, and the "reality" of the natural numbers, or the reality of algebraic fields, rings and groups. The only thing I wanted to indicate is that "it exists" for a mathematical concept is also a matter of convention, up to internal consistency. If a mathematician says that a specific mathematical structure "exists", then that is up to a part "conventional" - the only thing that wouldn't be accepted is a mathematician who comes up with an inconsistent structure, and insists upon its existence. I see "photons", "electrons", "atoms", "the moon", "my mother", "my body"... on almost the same level, with one single difference: those concepts are related to observations, while an algebraic structure isn't. That's why those last concepts are "physical concepts", and in as much as they seem to be very useful concepts, we can call them "real". In as much as "reality" for a mathematician only requires internal consistency (or at least not a clear indication of inconsistency, by lack of proof of consistency), physical concepts also demand agreement with perception/observation.

The philosophy is not a science. The science understands the empirical facts through the adequate mathematical formulation and solution of the problems posted by the observations.

Indeed, and ontological questions are of a fundamentally philosophical nature, which can hence not be addressed by a purely scientific approach - or better, the philosophical meta-science that underlies a specific scientific approach will determine entirely the ontological questions.

You statement is not so innocent. The people that investigate now the problems of information do not distinguish between the information and the information rate. Then the numbers have mass.

then most of the real numbers are black holes

 

[Fra]

I see "photons", "electrons", "atoms", "the moon", "my mother", "my body"... on almost the same level, with one single difference: those concepts are related to observations, while an algebraic structure isn't. That's why those last concepts are "physical concepts", and in as much as they seem to be very useful concepts, we can call them "real". In as much as "reality" for a mathematician only requires internal consistency (or at least not a clear indication of inconsistency, by lack of proof of consistency), physical concepts also demand agreement with perception/observation.

It seems to me that since these algebraic structures should also somehow be related to "observations" in a general sense, possibly self-observation - if you can consider thinking "self-observation".

What might have started as fairly philosophical questions, have probably evolved in mysterious ways into an definite and clear structure to satisfy even the most extreme demands of anality. I'd conjecture that this is even part of the problem here, no matter how contradictory it may seem

Sometimes real lifte questons does seem unclear and fuzzy. Yet, there is something that does keep bringing you back to the issue, until it gets clear enough to make more sense. Part of the problem seem to be inherently fuzzy.

Indeed, and ontological questions are of a fundamentally philosophical nature, which can hence not be addressed by a purely scientific approach - or better, the philosophical meta-science that underlies a specific scientific approach will determine entirely the ontological questions.

I think often philosophical elaborations tend to get very fuzzy and often merely just reduce the useful processing power, but OTOH I do not like when it's claimed that philosophical ponderings is completely irrelevant to science. I can not prove this, but this somehow seems to be a simplification uncalled for in the general case. I suspect that even seemingly unambigous things, may have started out ambigously. It seems to be one of the mysteries of life and reality. I like to defend both sides :) There are times where the fuzzy and poorly defined questions are the important ones

I think we need to have faith in stringent formalism, but we should not overestimate it's universality, because maybe it was orignally born out of what seem as plain baloney?

/Fredrik

 

[Anonym]

It seems to me that since these algebraic structures should also somehow be related to "observations" in a general sense...

It is discussed in quant-ph/0606121.

What might have started as fairly philosophical questions, have probably evolved in mysterious ways into an definite and clear structure to satisfy even the most extreme demands of anality… It seems to be one of the mysteries of life and reality.

I don’t see here any mystery. As you talk English and probably don’t understand and use Chinese, God talk mathematics and probably don’t understand and use English or Chinese. I am not telling God what to do, I quote Yuval Ne’eman:” God choose to be mathematician”.

Regards, Dany.

 

[Anonym]

We could go on a long discussion here

We already did that in “Particle-Wave duality and Hamilton-Jacobi equation”. You should take what I said literally. I am talking math only.

If a mathematician says that a specific mathematical structure "exists"…

I don’t use word mathematicians in that case, the people that I have in mind are usually called mathematical physicists, for example I. Newton, W.R. Hamilton, J.C. Maxwell, D.Hilbert, A.Einstein, E.Schrödinger, W. Heisenberg, P.A.M. Dirac, J. von Neumann, H.Weyl, E.P.Wigner, C.N. Yang , R.P.Feynman etc.

I see "photons", "electrons", "atoms", "the moon", "my mother", "my body"... on almost the same level, with one single difference: those concepts are related to observations, while an algebraic structure isn't. That's why those last concepts are "physical concepts", and in as much as they seem to be very useful concepts, we can call them "real". In as much as "reality" for a mathematician only requires internal consistency (or at least not a clear indication of inconsistency, by lack of proof of consistency), physical concepts also demand agreement with perception/observation.

I call them the perfectly defined mathematically and physically Real Hilbert Spaces.They are called the classical physics (dispersion free physical theories) and the measurement instruments are the physical objects described by the laws of the classical physics.

The underlined algebraic structure is easily observed in the tons of the observations (measurements), for example in SR: 4-dim space-time with the signature {+,-,-,-}; 2-dim complex wave function in non-relativistic QM: double slit interference pattern; 4-dim C2 algebra of Pauli spin in SG, etc.

You try to defend your position which is impossible. That led you to absurd statements.

then most of the real numbers are black holes

It is silly to ask explain joke but I dead to understand yours.

Regards, Dany.

 

[bruce2g]

Probably it's possible to detect an atom's recoil after the emission.

This is interesting. Sorry to take so long replying, but I needed to do a little research.

In order to measure the recoil, you need to measure the change in the atom's momentum. So you need to measure the momentum twice. Heisenberg then steps in and says that after the first measurement, the position of the atom becomes uncertain.

Here are some numbers, courtesy UI Urbana (http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys214/Spring07/discussions/html/wk4/sol4_5.pdf):
Assume a rubidium atom at rest (mass 87 amu; 1 amu = 1.6 ´ 10-27kg ) emits a photon of wavelength 780 nm. Energy = hc/lambda, and momentum = E/c = h/lambda = 8.47E-28 kgM/sec (End of stuff from UIU).

Our measurement error needs to be less than this. Since deltaP*deltaX<h, an easy approximation to the resulting position uncertainty deltaX is just h/p, which is easy since it's h/(h/lambda) = lambda. So our position error for the atom is at least lambda, which is 750 nm. This looks small, but it's actually a pretty big area compared to the size of an atom (750 nm = 7500 Å vs atomic radius = a few Å). So I don't see how you could find the atom again in order to measure the change in momentum.

This is no proof, but in this case it looks like it would be impossible to detect the atom's recoil, due to the uncertainty principle.

 

[Anonym]

This is interesting. Sorry to take so long replying, but I needed to do a little research.

Our measurement error needs to be less than this. Since deltaP*deltaX<h, an easy approximation to the resulting position uncertainty deltaX is just h/p, which is easy since it's h/(h/lambda) = lambda. So our position error for the atom is at least lambda, which is 750 nm. This looks small, but it's actually a pretty big area compared to the size of an atom (750 nm = 7500 Å vs atomic radius = a few Å). So I don't see how you could find the atom again in order to measure the change in momentum.

Reinvent wheel from the scratch is O.K. There is nothing wrong with the wheel. But why to do that? It will take time to reinvent all of QM by yourself and you will succeed nothing since it is already done. It is natural to travel forward in time. Believe me, you will enjoy yourself reading J.A.Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, “Quantum Theory and Measurement”, Prinston Univ. Press (1983). Then the results of your research will be interesting to everybody.

Regards, Dany.

P.S. However I consider your post beautiful and completely wrong indeed.

 

[bruce2g]

Thanks, I'll check out the Wheeler & Zurek book, which I expect to be authoritative on this subject. (BTW, the California library system now has a Link+ service that permits you to request just about any book in the state with a couple of clicks).