Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:24:39 +0000 From: john larkin Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Quantum mystics Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:24:39 -0700 Message-ID: <7lre6j5fibf2cht90dkedmftlej4rlmgr6@4ax.com> References: User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 46 X-Trace: sv3-eYiMTxAeFvj0O5KQ/XDzXMvU6wEa8q5LEtZKmHmoB8s+HGs0SBPJIZgV0GqJkMbFedYwZlj4x5GeUvr!38CEEzBktItR8NZvTVjg9mfJcNg3qTsvBsqCCZj2GGjmrDcZYgnEwX3LPObxfNxkkdcHanrPslgC!mlPGHQ== X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 2933 On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:15:51 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >On 6/10/24 20:26, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >[Snip...] > >> >> Sticking with the semiclassical picture of photodetection is good, because >> it avoids almost all of the blunders made by the photons-as-billiard-balls >> folk, but it doesn’t get you out of the mystery. >> >> The really mysterious thing about photodetection is that a given photon (*) >> >> incident on a large lossless detector gives rise to exactly one detection >> event, with probability spatialy and temporally weighted by E**2. >> >> Doesn’t seem so bad yet, but consider this: >> If the detector is large compared with the pulse width/c, distant points on >> the detector are separated by a spacelike interval. >> >> That means that so when point A detects it, there is no way for the >> information reach point B before the end of the pulse, when E drops to >> zero, and yet experimentally point B doesn’t detect it. >> >> (*) a quantized excitation of a harmonic oscillator mode of the EM field in >> a given set of boundary conditions) >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > >We don't have single-photon-on-demand sources, nor perfect detectors. >Both sources and detectors are probabilistic. I'd like to see how >this argument fares using energy resolving detectors like TESs. > >I do not expect the probability of a detection event in one spot to >be affected instantly by a detection event somewhere else. The >collapse of the wave function is an attempt to apply statistical >reasoning to a single event. > >Jeroen Belleman Higher energy photons, like gamma rays, can be detected with 100% probability. They pack a lot of energy.