Speed of light

[Carrock]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior?

Set up a 2-d array of sensors which use the photoelectric effect.

Shine a monochromatic light through a double slit for a diffraction pattern.

Use the array to observe the pattern e.g. from variation in detections/second with sensor location.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Even in the photoelectric effect?

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior?

Well I would illuminate a suitable metal surface with a range of frequency  and intensity EM waves, both above and below the critical frequency, and observe the effect, just as I believe it was Bequerel who first did it this way.

 

35 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Set up a 2-d array of sensors which use the photoelectric effect.

Shine a monochromatic light through a double slit for a diffraction pattern.

Use the array to observe the pattern e.g. from variation in detections/second with sensor location.

This is at cross purposes with my comment. It is not the sort of thing we are discussing.

[studiot]

Or perhaps I would simply repeat Hertz' experiments with several metals as suggested here.

The important description is between the margin marks.

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

Set up a 2-d array of sensors which use the photoelectric effect.

Shine a monochromatic light through a double slit for a diffraction pattern.

Use the array to observe the pattern e.g. from variation in detections/second with sensor location.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

This is at cross purposes with my comment. It is not the sort of thing we are discussing.

Could you you explain why my example is at cross purposes and your example is not:

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Well I would illuminate a suitable metal surface with a range of frequency  and intensity EM waves, both above and below the critical frequency, and observe the effect, just as I believe it was Bequerel who first did it this way.

 

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Could you you explain why my example is at cross purposes and your example is not:

Sure thing.

No disrespect is meant, and no Scientists/Engineers were hurt in production.

MigL specifically said that if you look (at any quantum) phenomenon for a wave activity, you will see it (but not a particle activity)
But if you look for a particle activity you will also see it (but not a wave activity).

I disputed that since the activity discovered by Herts and named "The PhotoElectric Effect" cannot be produced by any known (including EM) classical wave.
It is the fact there is a threshold frequency that is important here.
It is not an interference phenomenon like the slits as you described.
With the slits if you look for waves you will see them and if you look for particles you will see them - the interference pattern will build up over time in the second case.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by studiot

[Carrock]

24 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sure thing.

No disrespect is meant, and no Scientists/Engineers were hurt in production.

MigL specifically said that if you look (at any quantum) phenomenon for a wave activity, you will see it (but not a particle activity)
But if you look for a particle activity you will also see it (but not a wave activity).

I disputed that since the activity discovered by Herts and named "The PhotoElectric Effect" cannot be produced by any known (including EM) classical wave.
It is the fact there is a threshold frequency that is important here.
It is not an interference phenomenon like the slits as you described.
With the slits if you look for waves you will see them and if you look for particles you will see them - the interference pattern will build up over time in the second case.

 

Interpretations... sometimes I think it would be easier just to shut up and calculate .

I was responding to this specific post:

4 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior?

So no need for me to verify the (assumed) photoelectric effect, just use it to show wave behavior. Implicitly I was using photons of more than threshhold energy. I actually think I've only shown behaviour consistent with unobservable waves.

I'd ignored Migl etc because of this interpretation issue:

 

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

I disputed that since the activity discovered by Herts and named "The PhotoElectric Effect" cannot be produced by any known (including EM) classical wave.

I agree with this despite my earlier probably inconsistent post; my view more clearly:

 

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

With the slits if you look for waves you will see them and if you look for particles you will see them - the interference pattern will build up over time in the second case.

This is a common view of wave/particle duality which I've never understood.

How can you ever 'observe' e.g. probability waves except by detecting particles and calculating their properties are consistent with probability waves, quantum effects, wave/particle duality etc? i.e. those waves are useful, unobservable constructs.

I suspect I'm just interpreting that last quote in the 'wrong' way. This gets more complicated the more I think about it..... even 'observation' and 'wave behaviour' are hard to define.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Carrock said:

Set up a 2-d array of sensors which use the photoelectric effect.

Shine a monochromatic light through a double slit for a diffraction pattern.

Use the array to observe the pattern e.g. from variation in detections/second with sensor location.

The diffraction happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I would illuminate a suitable metal surface with a range of frequency  and intensity EM waves, both above and below the critical frequency, and observe the effect, just as I believe it was Bequerel who first did it this way.

That wouldn’t show wave behavior, though 

[Mordred]

Here is one of the more modern experiments, where the two can be as closely investigated simultaneously as possible AFIAK.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4926

It is a variation of an experiment done by Wheeler to demonstrate the no hidden variable aspects. Details on this in the opening paragraphs. The pop media link also mentions that the measurement apparatus switches modes between particle or wave detection. so it isn't truly simultaneous just extremely close.

This experiment however claims simultaneous photographing of the duality

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7407.pdf

here is a pop media quick read

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

 

 

[jajrussel]

I came across another video that seems to at least rationalize what I've been thinking. There is a section that says to my head, " there it is, you can make the leap they have already, in a way, said it."

Perhaps a quantum leap, in keeping with the subject, which, is the thought I started off trying to explain, or is it the abyss that says, go to your room, lock the door, switch the light off, and ask yourself, why, oh why, did you go there?

You know there are a number of videos about quantum physics that picture amazingly magical things occurring all around us as we at the least hold onto a drink of some sort. A Martine? Maybe, a scotch on the rocks gently swirled while people and colors pop in and out of existence all around us...  This isn't one of those videos... Actually, I think this one is better in spite of the affinity I have for scotch... Which I would like to point out that I no longer touch.

 

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I came across another video that seems to at least rationalize what I've been thinking. There is a section that says to my head, " there it is, you can make the leap they have already, in a way, said it."

I really liked the video. Accurate (AFIK) and open ended i.e. with clear indications of the complicated physics necessarily skipped in such a brief explanation.

 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you set up the photoelectric effect to look for wave behavior?

<my answer>

9 hours ago, swansont said:

The diffraction happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

Not sure about the first sentence. Agree with the second sentence.

A slightly different question.

 

How would you look for wave behavior?

<answer>

Is there any answer which precludes this response:

The wave behavior happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

 

 

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Carrock said:

I really liked the video. Accurate (AFIK) and open ended i.e. with clear indications of the complicated physics necessarily skipped in such a brief explanation.

 

<my answer>

Not sure about the first sentence. Agree with the second sentence.

A slightly different question.

 

How would you look for wave behavior?

<answer>

Is there any answer which precludes this response:

The wave behavior happens before the detection. At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

Why is that an issue? You have evidence of wave behavior. It’s just not the detection method that provides it.

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why is that an issue? You have evidence of wave behavior. It’s just not the detection method that provides it.

Any detection, not only photoelectric, involves

 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

... At the instant of detection, you have particle behavior (localized, quantized energy)

If this cannot be used as a necessary part of evidence of wave behavior, then what evidence is there for wave behaviour?

Edited January 17, 2019 by Carrock

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Carrock said:

If this cannot be used as a necessary part of evidence of wave behavior, then what evidence is there for wave behaviour?

The spatial pattern. 

[Carrock]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The spatial pattern. 

OK, but that surely also applies to my original example of an array of photoelectric effect detectors.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Carrock said:

OK, but that surely also applies to my original example of an array of photoelectric effect detectors.

By focusing on the detail of the detector younare implying it matters. You could use any detector and it would do the same thing. The fact that one detector uses the PEE doesn’t have anything to do with it. There is nothing inherent in the PEE that shows wave behavior.

[Carrock]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

By focusing on the detail of the detector younare implying it matters.

I didn't intend that implication.

Any suitable detector could be used.

Perhaps we agree.

[jajrussel]

14 hours ago, Mordred said:

Here is one of the more modern experiments, where the two can be as closely investigated simultaneously as possible AFIAK.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4926

It is a variation of an experiment done by Wheeler to demonstrate the no hidden variable aspects. Details on this in the opening paragraphs. The pop media link also mentions that the measurement apparatus switches modes between particle or wave detection. so it isn't truly simultaneous just extremely close.

This experiment however claims simultaneous photographing of the duality

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7407.pdf

here is a pop media quick read

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

 

 

Hmm, the pop media quick read?

The third article says they fire electrons at the standing waves photon  particles ? If the particles struck belong to the standing wave why doesn’t the wave collapse when the particles are struck?

it also says that as the light particles are hit the effect is to make them move faster, or slower. How do they move faster? The implication seems to be that at least some of the waves particles must already be moving slower. Which, seems once again to lead to the question slower than what?  Normal? I thought I new what normal was for a photon? Am I going to learn something new here? Is there something about a standing wave that slows its photons down to some  degree where they could be noted to speed up when struck? 

If they are firing that close to a nanowire how do they know they hit a photon? Is there any chance they compressed a portion of the wave causing the emission of a photon?

Are they using a nanowire to slow photons down?

Edited January 17, 2019 by jajrussel

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Carrock said:

I didn't intend that implication.

Any suitable detector could be used.

Perhaps we agree.

Perhaps.

if you have an array of detectors, you can confirm the wave nature of light, as you can measure/display the diffraction pattern.

 

[MigL]

You can even confirm it with a single detector.

If you overlay the photographic plates of single detections, done at different locations ( say NY and LA ), and at different times, you will note a diffraction pattern.
( another 'funny' aspect of QM )

[jajrussel]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:59 PM, MigL said:

You can even confirm it with a single detector.

If you overlay the photographic plates of single detections, done at different locations ( say NY and LA ), and at different times, you will note a diffraction pattern.
( another 'funny' aspect of QM )

The problem seeming to be? How do you derive spooky action at a distance, or instantaneous from a diffraction pattern?

The assumption is that there must be a correlation that that says the velocity is the same for both wave, and particle. From what I’ve read the math suggested otherwise, and was accurate enough that it bothered a man who’s life work said; “ impossible.”

Perhaphs, another assumption just as inaccurate as the first.

How do you put it in units? What number do you get when you jump from c to instantaneous? How do you get there from here?

There was another video. An experiment planned. Not completed due to weather? Was it ever completed? The video reminded me of another video in search of the Loch Ness Monster.

 I’m beginning to doubt. At what point did the skepticism begin?

It’s hard for me to remember. Getting to another room, wondering why, was beginning to become an old joke anyway. Then I found myself standing keys in hand suddenly annoyed with the memory that I wanted to drive home. Then early this morning, how long was I staring at the blurred words of the book I wasn’t reading? What was I thinking? Literally?

 I t reminds me of a feeling I I had once when I read something. Vanity, all is vanity.

Oh, well...

[jajrussel]

 

Finally found the video that says it all. It’s long and as I watched it again I started getting bored about 30 minutes in.

 I do have questions cause I am trying to figure out a way to get from c to entanglement. I’m still thinking. Once I figure out how to explain it , it shouldn’t hurt anything to mention it. Actually, I was watching two other videos where they were discussing quantum physics, and string theory where in one they added an an extra  dimension to get an answer they were looking for. Then there is string theory... Then just before I fell asleep I thought, hmm, if they can add even one dimension to describe an effect, then they shouldn’t object if,for a dimensionless point in time, I suggested removing one, so you can have a distance that isn’t bound by time. Then, maybe you can get from A to B instantaneously without violating c...Not sure? I can’t think why deleting time for a certain distance can’t be shown mathematically. Of coarse if I am the one who has to do it. It may take a while. Also they may have to complete their search for the Loch Ness monster in order to prove it. If the weather only holds? 

The video actually stopped being boring after a good yawn.

Okay, they found Nessie.  I didn’t remember that the first time. I’m guessing that the first time I watched it , I must have fallen asleep about the time I started getting bored. 

Edited January 20, 2019 by jajrussel