Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:27:05 +0000
From: john larkin <jl@650pot.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Quantum mystics
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:27:04 -0700
Message-ID: <0fch6jh517mno0bfepv2tbsv0emg1to16e@4ax.com>
References: <v44t6u$3n7fn$1@dont-email.me> <v4651b$1ejef$1@solani.org> <gm2e6jdple0j6iuskqjkig5vfcqruq7pj4@4ax.com> <v4799p$h5qj$2@dont-email.me> <v47d37$hnfj$2@dont-email.me> <v47gh8$isp6$1@dont-email.me> <v47qa7$ko5c$1@dont-email.me> <7lre6j5fibf2cht90dkedmftlej4rlmgr6@4ax.com> <v4aajh$173n5$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 62
X-Trace: sv3-GR6lb7oGG+9xGKqRYr4sSflV7jKku2qeJpm2nik0UrqyE5D0NDlQUfPoCzdcmtyKoC9rRUBeklsTysZ!IwM3h+Qr2FTC6IPq9yIHcjpze6jc0Eq3HIEOmza8t/c3xjcDrJBCXRoc3P8B7ij4L5DKAYqtr7df!RkgQVg==
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: 3592

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:06:10 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 6/10/24 23:24, john larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:15:51 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> 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.
>> 
>
>Yes, but you'd need to use quite dense stuff to have a good
>chance of intercepting it. Lead tungstate is the thing these
>days.
>
>Jeroen Belleman

I suspect that a tight spectral resolution (and some gamma lines are a
few per cent wide) implies high detection efficiency. 

Visible light is just too wimpy to get clear quantum detection.