Mach-Zehnder Interferometer

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


That claim is, however, a means of explaining the observation of particle characteristics in a photon. That explanation supposes that the observation is caused by an illusion, but that makes it no less of an observation. I don't know if you conflate observing with seeing, or just using "seen" as just another way to say "observe". If it's the first, you are misunderstanding "observations" as an epistemological category, if it's the latter your argument is factually incorrect.

A quick look into wikipedia will give you all properties of photons that have so far been observed.

You are making the enormous mistake that your observations are indicating the characteristics of a particle and no other explaination is possible. Even when the concept of particles are found to be conflicting with any logical reasoning, it is still maintained. Trying to support this theoretical concept has produced the most outrageous arguments even among those who support the concept. How can you support a theory that indicates the observer some how effects the experiment when nothing in our previous experiences of nature or science has shown this? How can the idea of particles in an experiment indicate the only explaination is that there are thousands of other worlds? It may well be correct but do you not ever doubt that there may be something crucially wrong with the fundamental concepts science insists on supporting?

The properties of a photon. None of them indicate the characteristics of a particle. If there are please tell me what they are.

-- Updated Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:11 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


The multi universe theory is superficially rational, but deeper down it has problems, like it would not be possible to know there are other universes since no information can pass between them.

Mostly quantum mechanics follows a logic of freedom, except the alternatives don't seem to be in the future. The observer in qm is then = the decider, the superposition collapse = decision, the entangled photon states = alternatives. It has also been proven that the logic that "things could have turned out differently" applies to the photon state not chosen.

If something appears irrational or the experiment does not support the concept why are we pursuing the concept beyond any logical reasoning?

[Cronos988]

Xris, I don't actually think there is that much disagreement between us. It just seems that I am still calling an "observation" what you already label an "explanation".

You say "particle characteristics" is a (wrong) explanation for the behaviour of the photon, and I say the behaviour of the photon can be calles "particle characteristics", and we need to explain that. Again, if you watch the video in the OP, the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer shown there is actually a device that would show us the wave-like characteristics (namely interference) of photons. However, as the experiment progresses, it becomes obvious that the photon doesn't behave wave-like anymore. Do we agree that this is the case?

If so, then the question is only how we explain that behaviour. And from there, there is nothing illogical about supposing Multiple worlds. Quite the contrary, that theories that at first glance seem outright fantastic can be entertained shows that science is not dogmatic and open to new solutions.

[Xris]

Xris, I don't actually think there is that much disagreement between us. It just seems that I am still calling an "observation" what you already label an "explanation".

You say "particle characteristics" is a (wrong) explanation for the behaviour of the photon, and I say the behaviour of the photon can be calles "particle characteristics", and we need to explain that. Again, if you watch the video in the OP, the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer shown there is actually a device that would show us the wave-like characteristics (namely interference) of photons. However, as the experiment progresses, it becomes obvious that the photon doesn't behave wave-like anymore. Do we agree that this is the case?

If so, then the question is only how we explain that behaviour. And from there, there is nothing illogical about supposing Multiple worlds. Quite the contrary, that theories that at first glance seem outright fantastic can be entertained shows that science is not dogmatic and open to new solutions.

If you consider there is no photon particle, the need to explain the characteristics with relation to a particle, becomes redundant. I never believed it travelled as a wave function.If it is not a particle and the wave function is an illusion then something else has to be considered.

I object to the conclusion not because they need to be considered but because of the reasons they need to be considered. The obstinate determined view that we are looking at particles. It is never ever suggested that the basic concept could be wrong.If religion suggests another world, a heaven, it is immediately laughed at and rightly so but if science recommends thousands we are expected to be excited and find it acceptable.

[Cronos988]

But both "particle" and "wave" are just names. There is no "obstinate determined view that we are looking at particles". Science doesn't make statements about the "true nature" of anything, thats the subject of philosophy.

"particle characteristics" is just another word for "when we send light through apparatus A we see X". Calling X "particle" is just a convention to enable communication. The conclusion you object to just isn't there.

You may find the many-worlds hypothesis ridiculous, but can you make a philosophical argument against it?

[Steve3007]

Teh:

Actually, I believe frogs eyes can detect single photons, and I was under the impression that cats eyes can too. Certainly photomultipliers can detect single photons. Unfortunately, human eyes can't detect single photons, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, but not far off: I seem to recall reading/hearing somewhere that it takes at least 7 photons to stimulate a rod in the most sensitive part of the human eye enough to be visible. I don't know how true that it is. Seven sounds suspiciously like one of those numbers that is always used in phoney statistics. (Like the "seven signs of aging" in cosmetics commercials.) It must depend on the frequency, and therefore energy of the photons, but even if it's only a rough order-of-magnitude truth, it still makes the human eye surprisingly sensitive.

When Rutherford and Geiger were doing their alpha particle scattering experiments they used a device called a spinthariscope to observe the scintillations caused by the impact of single alpha particles. It was horribly sensitive work, involving half an hour of getting accustomed to complete darkness before staring without blinking to see the flashes. But each flash was the result of an individual alpha particle collision - just two protons and two neutrons - quite a "quantumy" object - although it would have been composed of several thousand photons.

So perhaps our direct perception is not so far from the quantum world as we might think.

[Xris]

But both "particle" and "wave" are just names. There is no "obstinate determined view that we are looking at particles". Science doesn't make statements about the "true nature" of anything, thats the subject of philosophy.

"particle characteristics" is just another word for "when we send light through apparatus A we see X". Calling X "particle" is just a convention to enable communication. The conclusion you object to just isn't there.

You may find the many-worlds hypothesis ridiculous, but can you make a philosophical argument against it?

Particles are one moment essential and then become characteristics. If they are not particles, photons, do they exist? The simple statement that photons exist does not fulfill their purpose. Ghosts exist as a concept but simply accepting the concept does not give them credibility. Accepting them as a concept has generated the need to invent many worlds. You do not give heaven reason to exist simply because you believe in god. If I do not believe in god how can I be presumed to debate heaven? BUT if you tell me heaven exists without the need of god I could give you an argument. Just debating many worlds does not give photons credibility. Apart from quantum particles giving rise to this belief there is no argument for them. Many worlds have no more substance than gods heaven.

[Cronos988]

Particles are one moment essential and then become characteristics. If they are not particles, photons, do they exist?

That depends on your definition of "existance". If you differentiate between "exists" and "essentially is", then photons do exist, whether they essentially are, I do not know.

The simple statement that photons exist does not fulfill their purpose.

That purpose being what, exactly?

Ghosts exist as a concept but simply accepting the concept does not give them credibility.

Not in any menainfull interpretation of the word "exist". "Ghosts" isn't a name for any known observation, so "ghosts exist" is nonsense.

Accepting them as a concept has generated the need to invent many worlds.

There is no need to "accept" anything. Light exists, and light behaves in a certain way. There is nothing more to it.

Just debating many worlds does not give photons credibility. Apart from quantum particles giving rise to this belief there is no argument for them. Many worlds have no more substance than gods heaven.

I can only repeat myself. "Photon" is the name for an observation. No credibility and no belief is required. Again: Do you agree that the experiment shown in the OP constitutes an observation of how light behaves?

[Xris]

And I can only repeat what I have already stated. Making the claim that photons exist is in itself a profound utterance. It indicates that light consists of a preconceived concept that can not be adjusted. Light has certain characteristics that does not essentially require the theory of photons. Light is not the problem it is how we conceive it. Everything that confuses us about the concept of particles has huge repercussions in science and philosophy.just read any post. They exist till they are questioned and then they become an enigma, a myth that demands belief.

Sorry I did not answer your last question. Light acts in certain way that is not explained by our understanding. I do not deny the experiments that show how light acts or behaves. That would be silly, but because we do not understand it, does not require us to make further assumptions. We can not invent to support a false theory.

[Cronos988]

Light has certain characteristics that does not essentially require the theory of photons.

Ok, so what theory would you use?

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


Ok, so what theory would you use?

Not one theory is adequate to understand the EM transmission of energy. I have read and argued for Bill Gaedes EM ropes but trying to associate them with other radiation I find it is beyond my comprehension or ability to fully argue his case. I have read alternatives that give the idea of a spiders like web where the universe is constructed of electrical energy, bunched to form mass in places and by EM filaments where mass is not expressed. But the truth is I have no real idea, does that fact make what we do accept, acceptable? Any strange alternative does not come any where near the idea that photons require. Human altering reality or a multitude of alternative worlds.

[Teh]

(Nested quote removed.)

Not one theory is adequate to understand the EM transmission of energy. I have read and argued for Bill Gaedes EM ropes but trying to associate them with other radiation I find it is beyond my comprehension or ability to fully argue his case. I have read alternatives that give the idea of a spiders like web where the universe is constructed of electrical energy, bunched to form mass in places and by EM filaments where mass is not expressed. But the truth is I have no real idea, does that fact make what we do accept, acceptable? Any strange alternative does not come any where near the idea that photons require. Human altering reality or a multitude of alternative worlds.

That photons are massless, chargeless, spin 1, particles, that do not decay and have no internal structure (i.e. they are fundamental) is an experimentally and theoretically established fact of nature.

The wave-theory of light is easy to disprove. Solve Maxwell's equations for a dim light source viewed through a double-slit. According to wave-theory, you will obtain a dim interference pattern, but that is not what happens in reality. What you observe are specks of equal brightness appearing on the detector - what changes as the source is dimmed is how often the specks arrive.

All physicists know that, at a fundamental level, the wave theory of light is wrong. Feynman wrote in his book QED:

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."

The Bill Gaede EM Rope nonsense isn't even funny.

[Xris]

You are asking me to accept that photons exist but in the same breath tell me they don't. Expect me to believe the outrageous conclusions they create while dismissing anything else that might require investigation. I was wondering why is it that only recently, certain well informed posters argued that photons could be seen travelling as a wave function. If that is the case then we can dismiss the delayed split slit screen experiment. Now we only need to understand how photon particles can be assumed to be capable of being created ravelling at their maximum speed, do not experience acceleration, can be slowed, do not experience time, without mass can be effected by gravity,have length but no width, can not be seen travelling only arriving, can be assumed to move from one reality to another and can be influenced by observation? And Gaedes ropes are not worthy of a simple laugh.Well here is one ignorant observer laughing his head off.

[Teh]

You are asking me to accept that photons exist but in the same breath tell me they don't. Expect me to believe the outrageous conclusions they create while dismissing anything else that might require investigation. I was wondering why is it that only recently, certain well informed posters argued that photons could be seen travelling as a wave function. If that is the case then we can dismiss the delayed split slit screen experiment. Now we only need to understand how photon particles can be assumed to be capable of being created ravelling at their maximum speed, do not experience acceleration, can be slowed, do not experience time, without mass can be effected by gravity,have length but no width, can not be seen travelling only arriving, can be assumed to move from one reality to another and can be influenced by observation? And Gaedes ropes are not worthy of a simple laugh.Well here is one ignorant observer laughing his head off.

What do you mean by "photons could be seen travelling as a wave function"? Could you please explain!

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


What do you mean by "photons could be seen travelling as a wave function"? Could you please explain!

Well I understood that the double slit experiment indicated the supposed dual nature of light. What exactly are you saying it indicates?

[Teh]

(Nested quote removed.)

Well I understood that the double slit experiment indicated the supposed dual nature of light. What exactly are you saying it indicates?

You claim that "photons could be seen travelling as a wave function". What do you mean by that statement? The reason I ask, is that I don't understand what you mean. I try to avoid making statements that I don't understand, and I presume you do the same. Please explain.