Why does the electron orbit the nucleus?

[DBT]

Yet the author is saying that firing single photons does not produce an interference pattern?

A single photon cannot produce a pattern of any kind, let alone behave collectively. It's like any sort of data. A single data point doesn't form a pattern. You need lots of data points to reveal a pattern that might reflect a property of the source of the data.

My question is more related to the author's comment: ''So it seems that photons are really particles that behave collectively like waves'' - which seems to be at odds with other interpretations.

 

[Treedbear]

Yet the author is saying that firing single photons does not produce an interference pattern?

A single photon cannot produce a pattern of any kind, let alone behave collectively. It's like any sort of data. A single data point doesn't form a pattern. You need lots of data points to reveal a pattern that might reflect a property of the source of the data.

My question is more related to the author's comment: ''So it seems that photons are really particles that behave collectively like waves'' - which seems to be at odds with other interpretations.

I see. I think if I was the author I would have stated it as "particles that, collectively, behave like waves." So it's not mistaken to mean that they behave in a coordinated manner. Although that's very tempting to deduce given that it's usually interpreted as a pattern produced when one photon interferes with another.

 

[repoman]

I wonder if this guy has a good explanation to the OP, because his explanation to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is great here. Explained why eternal electrons have a infinitesimally exact mass for example, whereas fleeting W bosons have varying masses.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What about this interpretation?

Quote:
''Just to clarify one point, if a single photon is fired at the two slits, an interference pattern will not appear. Rather, a single 'blip' will appear on the screen, which indicates that the photon is not a wave, but rather a particle. If a large number of photons are fired at the slits,an interference pattern will begin to appear. So it seems that photons are really particles that behave collectively like waves. The same reasoning applies to all particles, not just photons.''

I don’t like the use of the word “collectively” here. It’s not that an electron interferes with other electrons. It’s more that its wave-like properties interact with the two slits to generate the probability pattern of where the particles will be detected.

Yet the author is saying that firing single photons does not produce an interference pattern?

Single photons make single detections. But if you collect enough photons you’ll see a pattern form even if the photons arrive independently of each other.

I used to do ultraviolet spectroscopy with photon counting detectors so I experienced this all the time.

 

[Treedbear]

Yet the author is saying that firing single photons does not produce an interference pattern?

Single photons make single detections. But if you collect enough photons you’ll see a pattern form even if the photons arrive independently of each other.

I used to do ultraviolet spectroscopy with photon counting detectors so I experienced this all the time.

Something that continues to bug me about the double slit experiment is how does one go about detecting which slit a photon goes through without physically influencing the path of the photon? The only experiment I'm aware of that doesn't by design is the delayed quantum erasure which generates an entangled duplicate photon that goes on to detectors.

 

[Swammerdami]

I see. I think if I was the author I would have stated it as "particles that, collectively, behave like waves."

But isn't the whole point of the single photon 2-slit experiment that even a single photon behaves like a wave?

 

[DBT]

And the difference being the presence or absence of a detector/observer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet the author is saying that firing single photons does not produce an interference pattern?

Single photons make single detections. But if you collect enough photons you’ll see a pattern form even if the photons arrive independently of each other.

I used to do ultraviolet spectroscopy with photon counting detectors so I experienced this all the time.

Something that continues to bug me about the double slit experiment is how does one go about detecting which slit a photon goes through without physically influencing the path of the photon? The only experiment I'm aware of that doesn't by design is the delayed quantum erasure which generates an entangled duplicate photon that goes on to detectors.

Is it that important which slit it goes through? The point is that instead of creating two distinct groups of impacts, it creates an interference pattern, even one by one. It isn't exactly what one would think would happen, but this stuff has been demonstrated repeatedly. It is well beyond established. Photons (massless), electrons (tiny tiny mass), buckyballs (each consisting of 60 Carbon atoms), and more recently whatever the heck you want to call C₇₀₇H₂₆₀F₉₀₈N₁₆S₅₃Zn₄.

Subatomic "particles" to very large molecules do this, whether you do it in a large beam or one at a time.

 

[Treedbear]

Something that continues to bug me about the double slit experiment is how does one go about detecting which slit a photon goes through without physically influencing the path of the photon? The only experiment I'm aware of that doesn't by design is the delayed quantum erasure which generates an entangled duplicate photon that goes on to detectors.

Is it that important which slit it goes through?

Yes, according to the purported observer effect.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.

The point is that instead of creating two distinct groups of impacts, it creates an interference pattern, even one by one. It isn't exactly what one would think would happen, but this stuff has been demonstrated repeatedly. It is well beyond established. Photons (massless), electrons (tiny tiny mass), buckyballs (each consisting of 60 Carbon atoms), and more recently whatever the heck you want to call C₇₀₇H₂₆₀F₉₀₈N₁₆S₅₃Zn₄.

Subatomic "particles" to very large molecules do this, whether you do it in a large beam or one at a time.

I recognize all that but it doesn't address my question about the use of detectors. Supposedly the observer effect would apply to those examples as well.

 

[Treedbear]

I see. I think if I was the author I would have stated it as "particles that, collectively, behave like waves."

But isn't the whole point of the single photon 2-slit experiment that even a single photon behaves like a wave?

But does it involve the interaction of these individual photons which arrive at different times, as might be implied under certain uses of the term "collectively"? Or is each photon exhibiting evidence of wave-like behavior even though acting on its own? In other words, is the collective pattern produced by many individual photons actually due to the interference of waves? Or is it more like a Moiré pattern?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Or is each photon exhibiting evidence of wave-like behavior even though acting on its own?

Yes, I believe this is the case. The photon approaches the two slits. It's wavelike properties interact with the two slits in such a way that the path it takes after the slits depends on a probability distribution. The detector then detects the photon. The next photon does the same thing, and the next. Eventually, enough photons have gone through the slits and been detected on the other side that the probability distribution can be seen in the pattern of the detected photons. Assuming that the photons are the same wavelength and the orientation of their path relative to the slits is preserved, then each photon will follow the same probability distribution.

It's like running a Monte Carlo simulation in which each photon has a probability of being detected at a certain position and with enough runs the pattern emerges.

However, the two-slit interference pattern is typically taught with just pure wavelike properties, with a "wave front" of light entering the two slits and interfering on the other side. The problem is that the wave model and the particle model are obviously individually incomplete descriptions of the photon (and all elementary particles), and the use of them together is a bit of a kluge, because we don't have a complete model that gracefully handles the duality.

 

[Treedbear]

Or is each photon exhibiting evidence of wave-like behavior even though acting on its own?

Yes, I believe this is the case. The photon approaches the two slits. It's wavelike properties interact with the two slits in such a way that the path it takes after the slits depends on a probability distribution. The detector then detects the photon. The next photon does the same thing, and the next. Eventually, enough photons have gone through the slits and been detected on the other side that the probability distribution can be seen in the pattern of the detected photons. Assuming that the photons are the same wavelength and the orientation of their path relative to the slits is preserved, then each photon will follow the same probability distribution.

It's like running a Monte Carlo simulation in which each photon has a probability of being detected at a certain position and with enough runs the pattern emerges.

However, the two-slit interference pattern is typically taught with just pure wavelike properties, with a "wave front" of light entering the two slits and interfering on the other side. The problem is that the wave model and the particle model are obviously individually incomplete descriptions of the photon (and all elementary particles), and the use of them together is a bit of a kluge, because we don't have a complete model that gracefully handles the duality.

It makes me wonder whether the patterns produced by the intersection of wavefronts in a interferometer (such as the type used for measuring the surface contours in the manufacture of optical components) are actually not due to interference between separate wavefronts. I suppose it's really each photon interfering with its own probability wave rather than the separate photons in the two wavefronts "collectively" interfering with each other. I'm thinking the pattern would emerge even if the photons were sent one at a time as in the double-slit experiment.

 

[bigfield]

Or is each photon exhibiting evidence of wave-like behavior even though acting on its own?

Yes, I believe this is the case. The photon approaches the two slits. It's wavelike properties interact with the two slits in such a way that the path it takes after the slits depends on a probability distribution. The detector then detects the photon. The next photon does the same thing, and the next. Eventually, enough photons have gone through the slits and been detected on the other side that the probability distribution can be seen in the pattern of the detected photons. Assuming that the photons are the same wavelength and the orientation of their path relative to the slits is preserved, then each photon will follow the same probability distribution.

It's like running a Monte Carlo simulation in which each photon has a probability of being detected at a certain position and with enough runs the pattern emerges.

However, the two-slit interference pattern is typically taught with just pure wavelike properties, with a "wave front" of light entering the two slits and interfering on the other side. The problem is that the wave model and the particle model are obviously individually incomplete descriptions of the photon (and all elementary particles), and the use of them together is a bit of a kluge, because we don't have a complete model that gracefully handles the duality.

It makes me wonder whether the patterns produced by the intersection of wavefronts in a interferometer (such as the type used for measuring the surface contours in the manufacture of optical components) are actually not due to interference between separate wavefronts. I suppose it's really each photon interfering with its own probability wave rather than the separate photons in the two wavefronts "collectively" interfering with each other. I'm thinking the pattern would emerge even if the photons were sent one at a time as in the double-slit experiment.

The Wikipedia page for the double slit experiment has a nice little visualisation of the way the photon (or electron) interacts with the slits.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Double_slit_experiment.webm

 

[Treedbear]

It makes me wonder whether the patterns produced by the intersection of wavefronts in a interferometer (such as the type used for measuring the surface contours in the manufacture of optical components) are actually not due to interference between separate wavefronts. I suppose it's really each photon interfering with its own probability wave rather than the separate photons in the two wavefronts "collectively" interfering with each other. I'm thinking the pattern would emerge even if the photons were sent one at a time as in the double-slit experiment.

The Wikipedia page for the double slit experiment has a nice little visualisation of the way the photon (or electron) interacts with the slits.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Double_slit_experiment.webm

I was trying to think of how the interferometer is similar to the double-slit and it occurred to me that the interferometer uses a beam splitter. Usually a very thin half-silvered membrane. The photon either passes straight through it or else is reflected at a 90 degree angle, thus forming two separate arms. One arm forms the reference beam and the other the sample or test beam. They are made to intersect on a projection screen or camera and a pattern of light and dark bands reveal the difference in path lengths in fractions of a wavelength. The common link between the two apparatus is that an approximately 50% uncertainty is introduced at the very beginning of the photon's path.

 

[steve_bank]

The wave particle dilema/

Is it a particle or wave? We take it as both dneding on what we are trying to do.

The conversion efficiency of a photo detector is electrons per photons. The optical bandwidth of the detector is in wavelengths.

For a photon energy is related to wavelength. For an atom to absorb a photon the energy of the photon has to equal the badngap energy of the atom in Ev.

I look at it as a system of units and dimensions that work. In electo-optics it goes back and forth between particle and wave depending on what you are looking at.
used to have a copy as part of my at work books.. Solid Stae Electromncs by Steetman.

It is a good overall intro to applied QM an easy read.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It occurs to me--with all the rabbit holes you can go down in physics, especially particle phyiscs--it the fundamental particle of the universe perhaps the rabbit?

 

[Bomb#20]

is the fundamental particle of the universe perhaps the rabbit?

Nah, it's turtles all the way down.