Re: Photons Under Control
tfleming1_at_hotkey.net.au
Date: 11/03/04
- Next message: Lucky Luke: "High PH therapy"
- Previous message: doe: "Cancer's rapacious need for iron"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:20:41 +1100
I'm not up with this thread, but if I'm not wrong you're saying (and as the
'accidentals' are described) the photon seems to have a substructure;
consistent with supraluminal effects etc; you may also be interested in the
work at the link below
http://www.cymatherapy.com/A%20predicted%20photon%20chemistry-hand%20out.pdf
The interest to biophysics is paramount and does in fact explain some long
unexplained effects including how genes can be specifically expressed and
the work of Popp etc on biophotons.
Tony Fleming Ph.D.
Biophotonics Research Institute
www.biophotonicsresearchinstitute.com
"Caroline Thompson" <ch.thompson1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:tPKhd.2820$yg3.1743@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:VEfgd.22437$SW3.3788@fed1read01...
>> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "Ken Kubos" <kubos@execpc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<10o1rd9ppnl2e92@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> Re Press Release:
>>>> http://www.physorg.com/news1755.html
>>>>
>>>> Photons Under Control
>>>> October 28, 2004
>>>>
>>>> Building block created for quantum-computing, secure communication and
>>>> quantum Internet
>
> Full ref to paper:
> Matthias Keller, Birgit Lange, Kazuhiro Hayasaka, Wolfgang Lange & Herbert
> Walther, "Continuous generation of single photons with controlled waveform
> in an ion-trap cavity system", Nature 431, 1085, 28 October 2004
>
> Unfortunately I can't readily get hold of a copy, since the claims sound
> interesting.
>
>>> Thanks, Ken, for the information you posted. Do you have an opinion as
>>> to the wavelength of a single photon?
>
> The emitted "photons" are all supposed to have wavelength 866 nm,
> according
> to the Press Release.
>
> Perhaps what you mean is the pulse duration? From the graphs this seems
> to
> be about 2 ns for a "photon" with a single peak to its profile, about 4 ns
> for a double-peaked one.
>
> But the fascinating question is whether or not what they are seeing is in
> fact consistent with the accepted ideas of what a "photon" is! They say
> that the double-peaked time spectrum represents observations on *single
> photons*. These are obtained by varying the pump profile in a similar
> pattern. How can what we are seeing be anything other than a purely wave
> effect, especially in view of the fact that the emission only occurs when
> the ion is in a resonant state between two mirrors?
>
> A resonance cannot happen instantaneously! I have not checked but would
> in
> any event be happy to bet that, if they were to allow some light to escape
> through the other mirror of the pair, they could detect a simultaneous
> "photon" there! In other words, they are not producing "single photons"
> but
> complete wave systems. [Equally, I wonder if, with the use of detectors
> with dead times of less than 2 ns, they could detect each double-peaked
> "photon", if not all "photons", more than once.]
>
> OK, so clearly my notion of the modern idea of what a "photon" is must be
> wrong! I'm assuming it means the indivisible little fellow that cannot be
> split, as per the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. But if it
> is
> an extended pulse (which I have always believed -- see for example
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9711044) and *can* be split (or detected
> twice
> if only we have sufficiently short dead times in our detectors), why cling
> to the term "single photon"? Why not just say "accurately controlled
> light
> pulse"?
>
>> It was an excited calcium atom. It has a few hundred associated
>> characteristic energy levels, each of which could mathematically be
>> back-calculated to a wavelength. It wouldn't *mean* anything, however.
>
> Why not? The dimensions of the cavity are presumably carefully chosen so
> that an exact number of wavelengths span the trap. The wavelength is
> surely
> a very meaningful quantity.
>
> Cheers
> Caroline
>
> Caroline H Thompson
>
> ch.thompson1@virgin.net
> http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
>
- Next message: Lucky Luke: "High PH therapy"
- Previous message: doe: "Cancer's rapacious need for iron"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
