Re: QM without "photons" or Schrdinger's_wave_equation=3F?=
- From: p.kinsler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:52:03 +0000 (UTC)
Robin Whittle <rw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But just before that, he seems to avoid a classical
> view of the emr itself, and thereby retains "photon"
> as something to do with the emr itself (not solely
> deposition of energy) by saying that according to QM:
> "the photon number in a Glauber state is
> intrinsically indefinite; hence one is not
> justified in considering the number of photons in
> each beam (during one trial) to be a definite
> quantity, in the sense of classical reality."
> What is the experimental evidence that emr is, in
> itself, quantitised? I feel sure it is not - [...]
Great! Now produce a theory in which is isn't, and
show how that theory is better than the standard one.
Otherwise, no-one actually trying to do any practical
research using quantum theory with EM is likely to
be much bothered by vague affronts to your intuition.
At least, develop your non-quantised EM theory to a sufficent
extent to make it (a) vaguely plausible and (b) demonstrate
some interesting features.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@xxxxxxxxxxx
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
.
- References:
- QM without "photons" or Schrödinger's wave equation?
- From: Robin Whittle
- QM without "photons" or Schrödinger's wave equation?
- Prev by Date: Re: Philosophia experimentalis before Newton
- Next by Date: Re: Quantum communication might be possible?
- Previous by thread: Re: QM without "photons" or Schrödinger's wave equation?
- Next by thread: Re: QM without "photons" or Schrödinger's wave equation?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
