Re: High data rate in narrow band - Why doesn't it work?

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:36:20 GMT

John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 08:21:52 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roy McCammon wrote:
>>> Photons are "like" a wave and "like" a particle.
>
>>
>> No they are not. Photons are particles, that are *characterised* by a
>> number called its "wavelength", which allows the probability of such
>> a photons location and momentum to be calculated.
>>
>
> And a single photon can be split in two by a half-silvered mirror,
> simultaneously taking two different paths to a detector.

Nope. Show me one experiment that explicitly shows *coincidence*
detection of such a split photon by detection in two tetectors at once.
Look, john I've been through all this so many times. Try and get the
book I referance in
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html, "Quantum
Mechanics, A Modern Development" ISBN981-02-4105-4. Leslie E. Ballentine

This book explicitly discusses your mentioned experiment. It shows quite
clearly that experiments are only consistent with photons taking one
path at a time. Ill see if I can copy out the text describing the
experiment and results.

The deal here is that most descriptions are complexly misleading on
these types of experiments. They *want* to show something that in fact
is *impossible* in *principle* under the mathematics of QM. None of
these experiments, and I mean not one, have a set-up that uses two
detectors to register a signal simultaneously. When ever you do, you
*never* get coincidence detection. Period. What they always do is do a
*different* experiment, and then use classical logic to try and *infer*
that iff such an experiment was done, it would imply that photons take
two paths. However, since QM does not obey classical arguments, the
argument is invalid. For example,
http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/comp/comp.html. They cheat and do a
*different* experiment. I am only interested in real experiments that
actually show coincidence detection. Anything else is completely
meaningless. QM depends crucially on the *exact* experimental
arrangement. You cannot infer results of experiments from different
experiments, because by assumptions, it quantum mechanics, not classical
mechanics. Classical logic is invalid. Its that simple.

Or see for example,

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ensemble

(main page is http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/muynck.htm#quantum,
apparantly a prof of phyics in Holland)
*******
a.. A related consequence of a realist version of an individual-particle
interpretation of the quantum mechanical state vector is that a
microscopic object must split if the state vector does so. For instance,
in neutron interference experiments of the type considered in Publ. 27
this would imply that a neutron traversing a neutron interferometer does
so while being split into two halves, each of which taking a different
path. Since this is in disagreement with all empirical data (strongly
suggesting that each neutron follows either one path or the other) a
realist individual-particle interpretation of the quantum mechanical
state vector is unattractive (as is the "suspended animation"
interpretation of the Schrödinger cat state referred to above). It is
quite remarkable that nevertheless this interpretation is widely
entertained. This may be due to the popular idea of particle-wave
duality, having been developed in the Copenhagen interpretation during
the early stages of the development of quantum mechanics, but being
obsolete by now.
a.. *********

Stop reading Bantam paperbacks, and papers from people with axes to
grind for sensationalism. You need to look at real graduate level text
books.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Quantcast