J.C.MacSwell Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 5 hours ago, swansont said: Again, your idea of what’s going on isn’t how the experiment is run. It’s done under controlled conditions so there’s virtually no other candidate photons, and you do coincidence measurement to screen out extraneous signals. If you do e.g. spontaneous parametric down-conversion, the entangled pairs are emitted in a particular direction. The bottom line is the folks doing these experiments understand what’s going on, as opposed to some hecklers in the peanut gallery. Declaring that “this can’t work” and the insinuation that you know more than the scientist who have performed the experiments isn’t a good look in light of the fact that this does work. LOL. I pictured you in a theatre doing your work. I hope at least the hecklers had to buy tickets... I would also like to add that some people thought Einstein was a lazy dog, and I have a relative that works very very hard. Edited January 14 by J.C.MacSwell
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, swansont said: I used to teach the folks running the reactor. If you actually knew more your son would be in violation of national security laws for having divulged classified material to you, and he’d lose his clearance, and probably his job and pension. You don’t need to separate them; most are irrelevant. They would be thermal photons that don’t trigger the photodetectors. If these are near-visible or visible wavelength photons being entangled and you’re worried about contamination, there are wavelength filters and also the very technologically sophisticated step of turning the room lights off during the experiment. There’s also the coincidence measurement I mentioned, which is a filter in the time domain. Even if most were irrelevant, this would not matter unless all are irrelevant leaving only one single entangled photon to be detected. You still have not explained how you rid the trillions of photons that would trigger a photodetector or how a single photon would be produced? Bye the way, the Chinese and Russians already know that Americans are working on Aegis, and that land-based units can be found in Poland and Romania and I think a new one is being built in Japan. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2849023/aegis-ashore-in-poland-on-target-for-2022/ Unless of course they do not have internet over there Romania station, they know, the USA wants them to know or this photo would not be on the net https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/photos/1909/5772731/1000w_q95.jpg Edited January 14 by Paulsrocket
pzkpfw Posted January 14 Posted January 14 2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: ... You still have not explained how you rid the trillions of photons that would trigger a photodetector or how a single photon would be produced? ... Are you reading replies? Neither "trillions" nor "single" applies the way you think. As already noted in this thread, the experiments are done in controlled conditions, as in, they don't leave the apparatus sitting out in the mid-day sun. And they are not dealing with one photon at a time, they are using statistics (as noted in this thread) to analyse the results over a multitude.
exchemist Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) 13 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: Is that your final answer? I'm just amused that you compare yourself with Galileo, which is one of the classic symptoms of crankery on forums such as this. In this case, though, you are not even advancing a half-arsed alternative theory, but arguing it is impossible to do an experiment that has already been done. So it's as if Galileo had spent his time disbelieving in the European discovery of the potato, when there were already potatoes actually being grown in Europe. 😄 Edited January 14 by exchemist 1
swansont Posted January 14 Posted January 14 14 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: Even if most were irrelevant, this would not matter unless all are irrelevant leaving only one single entangled photon to be detected. You still have not explained how you rid the trillions of photons that would trigger a photodetector or how a single photon would be produced? You haven’t explained where these trillions of photons have been conjured from.
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 6 hours ago, exchemist said: I'm just amused that you compare yourself with Galileo, which is one of the classic symptoms of crankery on forums such as this. In this case, though, you are not even advancing a half-arsed alternative theory, but arguing it is impossible to do an experiment that has already been done. So it's as if Galileo had spent his time disbelieving in the European discovery of the potato, when there were already potatoes actually being grown in Europe. 😄 Is that your answer as to how to measure a single photons spin? Because I missed it, but you are allowed to try again 1 hour ago, swansont said: You haven’t explained where these trillions of photons have been conjured from. Everywhere there is light there are trillions of photons. Number of photons emitted per second = (100 Watts) / (3.98 x 10^-19 J) Calculating this, we get: Number of photons emitted per second ≈ 2.51 x 10^20 photons Therefore, if we assume the light bulb is 100% efficient and emits light at a wavelength of 5 x 10^-7 m, approximately 2.51 x 10^20 visible light photons leave the light bulb per second. I find it easier just to say that trillions of photons are emitted from light sources. 6 hours ago, exchemist said: I'm just amused that you compare yourself with Galileo, which is one of the classic symptoms of crankery on forums such as this. In this case, though, you are not even advancing a half-arsed alternative theory, but arguing it is impossible to do an experiment that has already been done. So it's as if Galileo had spent his time disbelieving in the European discovery of the potato, when there were already potatoes actually being grown in Europe. 😄 I did not compare myself to Galileo, I said that there are still people who believe whatever the Catholic church or government tells them without thinking. I am not one of them -2
swansont Posted January 14 Posted January 14 16 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Everywhere there is light there are trillions of photons. Number of photons emitted per second = (100 Watts) / (3.98 x 10^-19 J) Calculating this, we get: Number of photons emitted per second ≈ 2.51 x 10^20 photons Therefore, if we assume the light bulb is 100% efficient and emits light at a wavelength of 5 x 10^-7 m, approximately 2.51 x 10^20 visible light photons leave the light bulb per second. I find it easier just to say that trillions of photons are emitted from light sources. This assumes there are light sources, and that the scientists are so clueless as to not realize this. You don't even give them the benefit of doubt that they'd realize this and turn light sources off, even though I already told you that one would do this. (Plus the fact that if you're doing this with an optical fiber, it's really hard for extraneous light to get in) And possibly enclose the experiment, if needed. I've had setups that did this, so the room lights could be on. Light doesn't get into the box. So I will ask again, what light? I'm telling you there isn't any. 1
Phi for All Posted January 14 Posted January 14 21 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: You are correct that I question things, as did Galileo who was jailed for not agreeing with the establishment. 24 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: I did not compare myself to Galileo, I said that there are still people who believe whatever the Catholic church or government tells them without thinking. Do you see how contradictory and confusing your posts can be? Please aim for more rigor, you're challenging mainstream science so you need to be extra persuasive in your arguments. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary support. 1
exchemist Posted January 14 Posted January 14 36 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Is that your answer as to how to measure a single photons spin? Because I missed it, but you are allowed to try again Everywhere there is light there are trillions of photons. Number of photons emitted per second = (100 Watts) / (3.98 x 10^-19 J) Calculating this, we get: Number of photons emitted per second ≈ 2.51 x 10^20 photons Therefore, if we assume the light bulb is 100% efficient and emits light at a wavelength of 5 x 10^-7 m, approximately 2.51 x 10^20 visible light photons leave the light bulb per second. I find it easier just to say that trillions of photons are emitted from light sources. I did not compare myself to Galileo, I said that there are still people who believe whatever the Catholic church or government tells them without thinking. I am not one of them Well you did actually, saying you questioned things as Galileo did. Be that as it may, my point stands. The experiment has been done. It’s fair for you to ask how the various difficulties that bother you were overcome. But to suggest that people may be in the grip of some false established narrative, enforced by a powerful organisation like the government or the medieval Catholic church, because that is what your comparison with Galileo implies, is bonkers.
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 27 minutes ago, swansont said: This assumes there are light sources, and that the scientists are so clueless as to not realize this. You don't even give them the benefit of doubt that they'd realize this and turn light sources off, even though I already told you that one would do this. (Plus the fact that if you're doing this with an optical fiber, it's really hard for extraneous light to get in) And possibly enclose the experiment, if needed. I've had setups that did this, so the room lights could be on. Light doesn't get into the box. So I will ask again, what light? I'm telling you there isn't any. LOL, so if there isn't any light, there are no photons to entangle. So how are two single photons generated for entanglement? Is there a single photon generator that can entangle two photons at generation, you know like a really small quantum flashlight? -2
Carrock Posted January 14 Posted January 14 20 hours ago, Paulsrocket said: Before working as a software engineer at Lockheed Martin my son was a radio operator on a nuclear sub, whose job was to decrypt messages meaning that he would know what the ship's new orders were before the ship's captain. That's interesting. I know a few people who were radio operators on commercial ships decades ago and none of them were able to decrypt secure messages not addressed to them. If, very improbably, the captain gave decryption information to your son, he deserved to be court-martialed and his security clearance revoked. Even worse is the idea that there are people in the U.S. military whose job includes having unnecessary access to highly secret information. 😧
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 2 minutes ago, exchemist said: Well you did actually, saying you questioned things as Galileo did. Be that as it may, my point stands. The experiment has been done. It’s fair for you to ask how the various difficulties that bother you were overcome. But to suggest that people may be in the grip of some false established narrative, enforced by a powerful organisation like the government or the medieval Catholic church, because that is what your comparison with Galileo implies, is bonkers. There are actually people who believe whatever they hear on the news and that know that the government never lies to the people. Many of these people still believe that microwaves cook food from the inside out. 3 minutes after I plugged in my first microwave oven, I knew that everyone was lied too. Why? Now you may or may not be old enough to remember this lie, but I was taught in the 6th grade that microwave ovens are great because they cook food from the inside out. That teacher was a zombie just repeating nonsense, and she taught math as well
swansont Posted January 14 Posted January 14 6 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: LOL, so if there isn't any light, there are no photons to entangle. Good god you are being obtuse. The room lights are the extraneous photons. They don’t give you the entangled photons.
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Carrock said: That's interesting. I know a few people who were radio operators on commercial ships decades ago and none of them were able to decrypt secure messages not addressed to them. If, very improbably, the captain gave decryption information to your son, he deserved to be court-martialed and his security clearance revoked. Even worse is the idea that there are people in the U.S. military whose job includes having unnecessary access to highly secret information. 😧 My son had the best noncommissioned job on his sub, because no one else was allowed in the radio room with him so he got privacy while working. All Navy sub communications are encrypted, the FBI handled the top secret SCI level clearance that my son had and has. It's not the captains job to decrypt all messages, it's the radio operators job, though there may well be certain messages for the captains eyes only, and if so my son would notify him. My son's Navy clearance is one of the qualifications for his working at the World's foremost defense contractor. LOL my son even got a commendation directly from the secretary of the Navy for finding a software flaw. How about you? Got cool photos from ICEX at Santas workshop at the North Pole too. https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/photos/2203/7083059/1000w_q95.jpg 25 minutes ago, swansont said: Good god you are being obtuse. The room lights are the extraneous photons. They don’t give you the entangled photons. I know that, so how are the two entangled photons generated? Say they are in a fiber; how did they get there and what generated them? Furthermore, how do you ever have one to compare the other too as both are moving at light speed or if stopped, they vanish Edited January 14 by Paulsrocket -1
swansont Posted January 14 Posted January 14 8 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: I know that, You knew and yet you asked anyway 8 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: so how are the two entangled photons generated? As I stated previously, one method is spontaneous parametric down-conversion. It's a two-photon decay in an atom. Along specific paths the photons will be entangled (yes, the scientists know which paths; you can google this if you want more info) 8 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Say they are in a fiber; how did they get there and what generated them? You couple the light into a fiber with a lens. 8 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Furthermore, how do you ever have one to compare the other too as both are moving at light speed or if stopped, they vanish News flash: any detection of a photon destroys it. You only "have" the photon for as long as it's bouncing around in your optics. 2
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 3 minutes ago, swansont said: You knew and yet you asked anyway As I stated previously, one method is spontaneous parametric down-conversion. It's a two-photon decay in an atom. Along specific paths the photons will be entangled (yes, the scientists know which paths; you can google this if you want more info) You couple the light into a fiber with a lens. News flash: any detection of a photon destroys it. You only "have" the photon for as long as it's bouncing around in your optics. So when your eyes detect a photon, they are destroyed, don't lenses detect and focus photons?
Carrock Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) Quote All Navy sub communications are encrypted Except when your son is carrying clear messages to the captain or other crew. As someone who chose not to start WW3 by faking messages, I'm surprised he didn't end up as chief of naval operations. 1 hour ago, Carrock said: Even worse is the idea that there are people in the U.S. military whose job includes having unnecessary access to highly secret information. 😧 Silly me, I didn't for a moment believe that was true. 1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said: How about you? Got cool photos from ICEX at Santas workshop at the North Pole too. Like you, I'll go with vicarious achievement. Best I can come up with is my dad was on various merchant ships escorting U.S. - Britain convoys in WW2. Only got his feet wet once when the wheelhouse windows were smashed by a nearby shell. BTW none of my close family, including my father, were in the military, so you 'win' on that. Quote It's not the captains job to decrypt all messages, it's the radio operators job, though there may well be certain messages for the captains eyes only, and if so my son would notify him. Quote Benjamin Franklin: "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Quote ...whose job was to decrypt messages meaning that he would know what the ship's new orders were before the ship's captain. So the unimportant things like ship's orders are fine for the radio operator to know. Next post Quote The radio operator is not allowed to leave the radio room when on duty, so he does not carry messages, the captain comes to him if need be. Is the radio operator trusted not to make his own private copy? If not, whoever searches him when he leaves would need the same clearance as he might see a decrypted message. Much better of course for the radio operator to memorize the messages. Quote if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Edited January 14 by Carrock responding to paulsrocket edit
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 4 minutes ago, Carrock said: Except when your son is carrying clear messages to the captain or other crew. As someone who chose not to start WW3 by faking messages, I'm surprised he didn't end up as chief of naval operations. Silly me, I didn't for a moment believe that was true. Like you, I'll go with vicarious achievement. Best I can come up with is my dad was on various ships escorting U.S. - Britain convoys in WW2. Only got his feet wet once when the wheelhouse windows were smashed by a nearby shell. The radio operator is not allowed to leave the radio room when on duty, so he does not carry messages, the captain comes to him if need be. My Dad was with the fifth marines and saw active duty at the invasion of Okinawa and my father-in-law was in the army and saw action on Leyte, got great photos of him on Leyte https://imgur.com/a/2mRhDEy
Bufofrog Posted January 14 Posted January 14 23 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So when your eyes detect a photon, they are destroyed Yes. 24 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: don't lenses detect and focus photons? No. Yes.
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: Yes. No. Yes. So how is a destroyed photon measured
Bufofrog Posted January 14 Posted January 14 2 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So how is a destroyed photon measured A photon that no longer exists cannot be measured. Is this not obvious to you?
swansont Posted January 14 Posted January 14 51 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So when your eyes detect a photon, they are destroyed, don't lenses detect and focus photons? How can one tell if a photon has passed through a lens? Does the lens itself indicate this? 23 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: So how is a destroyed photon measured Nobody has claimed this happens.
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 41 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: A photon that no longer exists cannot be measured. Is this not obvious to you? Sure but what is not obvious is how a detection can be confirmed when the evidence is always destroyed? 25 minutes ago, swansont said: How can one tell if a photon has passed through a lens? Does the lens itself indicate this? Nobody has claimed this happens. Light is of fundamental importance. It allows us to see the world around us and record pictures of our environment. It enables communication over long distances through optical fibers. All current methods of detecting light share a common property: absorption and thus destruction of a photon. That is from the Max Planck Institute for quantum optics. https://www.mpq.mpg.de/4861203/13-11-15-seeing-a-photon-without-absorbing-it#:~:text=All current methods of detecting,thus destruction of a photon. So if detecting the photon destroys it, how is the state or spin confirmed of a no longer existing photon? Answer, it can't be confirmed, and science requires confirmation, not faith 1 hour ago, Carrock said: Except when your son is carrying clear messages to the captain or other crew. As someone who chose not to start WW3 by faking messages, I'm surprised he didn't end up as chief of naval operations. Silly me, I didn't for a moment believe that was true. Like you, I'll go with vicarious achievement. Best I can come up with is my dad was on various merchant ships escorting U.S. - Britain convoys in WW2. Only got his feet wet once when the wheelhouse windows were smashed by a nearby shell. BTW none of my close family, including my father, were in the military, so you 'win' on that. So the unimportant things like ship's orders are fine for the radio operator to know. Next post Is the radio operator trusted not to make his own private copy? If not, whoever searches him when he leaves would need the same clearance as he might see a decrypted message. Much better of course for the radio operator to memorize the messages. Not everyone can get the TS-SCI level clearance to be in the radio room, or to be captain just as not everyone can do what my son does for Lockheed Martin. My son went thru rigorous testing and passed, did you?
Bufofrog Posted January 14 Posted January 14 32 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said: Sure but what is not obvious is how a detection can be confirmed when the evidence is always destroyed? I would explain it to you but history has shown that you will ignore the answer or dismiss it, so why bother. I will ask you how do you think solar cells work. I also suggested you goggle "how does a photon transfer energy to an object". With any luck you will be able to find a description that is simple enough for you to understand. Good luck! 1
Paulsrocket Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: I would explain it to you but history has shown that you will ignore the answer or dismiss it, so why bother. I will ask you how do you think solar cells work. I also suggested you goggle "how does a photon transfer energy to an object". With any luck you will be able to find a description that is simple enough for you to understand. Good luck! So you can't answer the question. At least you are honest Edited January 14 by Paulsrocket
Recommended Posts