Photons

Subduction Zone · Jan 14, 2014

TillICollapse said:
This is why I don't like the casino/deck analogy ... I was talking about an ace, independent of the deck and casino unfortunately. Doing away with the analogies, I was talking about a single electron, for example, before being measured.

The single electron interference pattern was even easier to achieve than the single photon experiment. With a double slit the same results occurred:

Feynman's double-slit experiment gets a makeover - physicsworld.com

Quantum physics still works.

Chesterton · Jan 14, 2014

leftrightleftrightleft said:
There are so many analogies about randomness and probability being thrown around here and I think what is confusing some people is the difference between "what will be" and "what is".

Chesteron, in the shuffled deck analogy, are you wanting to know "whether an ace will be pulled" or "where the aces are in the deck"?

Those are two fundamentally different questions.

Check the OP. If aces were photons of light...

Subduction Zone · Jan 14, 2014

Chesterton said:
Check the OP. If aces were photons of light...

The fact is that calling photons particles or waves are both wrong in a sense. Quantum theory matches the closest to reality to date and it treats them as probability functions. Our minds don't work too well with the idea of a probability function traveling through space so we try to find other ways to describe it.

Loudmouth · Jan 15, 2014

Chesterton said:
Check the OP. If aces were photons of light...

If aces were photons of light then it would be possible to deal out 52 aces from a standard 52 card deck.

leftrightleftrightleft · Jan 15, 2014

Chesterton said:
Check the OP. If aces were photons of light...

I feel like the main questions in the OP have been answered satisfactorily. Its now turned into a philosophical discussion about randomness and probability and how that relates to the way the universe operates on the quantum level.

Also, as Loudmouth said, if the aces were photons of light, then the whole deck would be aces (if we are only dealing with photons).

Unless I've misunderstood your analogy.

Loudmouth · Jan 15, 2014

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Also, as Loudmouth said, if the aces were photons of light, then the whole deck would be aces (if we are only dealing with photons).

Not quite what I was saying. If cards were like photons then every card would have the same chance of being an Ace at the moment it was being dealt. If there is a 1 in 13 chance of the first card being an Ace, then all of the subsequent cards should have the same chance. For 52 trials, the chances of getting an Ace every time should be 1 in 13^52 or about 1 in 8x10^57. The odds aren't great, but given enough trials you should be able to do it, IF cards were like aces.

The reason that card counting works in Blackjack is that each card does not have the same chance of being a face card or an ace. The probabilities change over time as different cards are played. If there are only 10 cards left in the deck and no aces have been dealth yet, then there is a very good probability that the next card will be an ace. Card counters know when the cards are in their favor and when they are not, so they bet accordingly and can give themselves a 2% advantage over the house for a 1 deck shoe.

Chesterton · Jan 15, 2014

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I feel like the main questions in the OP have been answered satisfactorily.

Not me. I asked what percentage of photons behave in which different way when they strike something, and the basic answer throughout the thread boils down to "We're uncertain", based upon the "uncertainty principle".

So for the fun of it I looked up several dictionary definitions of the word "principle". I won't reprint or even summarize the definition here, but those who are interested can look it up themselves. It's not a very certain word.

Loudmouth · Jan 15, 2014

Chesterton said:
Not me. I asked what percentage of photons behave in which different way when they strike something, and the basic answer throughout the thread boils down to "We're uncertain", based upon the "uncertainty principle".

Whether or not a photon behaves more wave-like or more particle-like depends on the situation. For example, in the single photon double slit experiment described above, 100% of the photons act like a wave when they go through the double slit, and 100% of the photons act like a particle when they interact with the photomultiplier tube (PMT).

The uncertainty principle says that you can only measure one aspect of a photon at a time, its momentum or its position.

essentialsaltes · Jan 15, 2014

Chesterton said:
Not me. I asked what percentage of photons behave in which different way when they strike something, and the basic answer throughout the thread boils down to "We're uncertain", based upon the "uncertainty principle".

If photons hit a perfect beam splitter, on average 50% will be reflected and 50% will be transmitted.

Justatruthseeker · Jan 15, 2014

No one has any idea what light is, including the so-called experts. It is just one of those things taken for granted in science, as are electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. Even though they are foundational pillars on which all the sciences are built upon, no one really has a clue as to what they really are. We like to pretend we understand them, but don't fool yourself into thinking we really do.

Loudmouth · Jan 15, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
No one has any idea what light is, including the so-called experts.

Why do you doubt that light is made up of photons?

Subduction Zone · Jan 15, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why do you doubt that light is made up of photons?

Or the fact that it consists of a changing electromagnetic field.

That can be shown to be the case with very low frequency radio waves. The only difference between radio waves and light waves is the frequency.

TillICollapse · Jan 15, 2014

Side note ... I figured out "dad" is a forum member, but what does it mean when I see that he was "defeated" in all these user signatures lol ? Just asking

essentialsaltes · Jan 15, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
No one has any idea what light is, including the so-called experts.

Speak for yourself.

Strathos · Jan 16, 2014

TillICollapse said:
Side note ... I figured out "dad" is a forum member, but what does it mean when I see that he was "defeated" in all these user signatures lol ? Just asking

I believe it has to do with the fact that he has "undefeated" as his user title, yet all that really means it that he never admits defeat even when his arguments have been refuted.

TillICollapse · Jan 16, 2014

Strathos said:
I believe it has to do with the fact that he has "undefeated" as his user title, yet all that really means it that he never admits defeat even when his arguments have been refuted.

Ah, ok gotcha

RealityCheck · Jan 16, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
No one has any idea what light is, including the so-called experts. It is just one of those things taken for granted in science, as are electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. Even though they are foundational pillars on which all the sciences are built upon, no one really has a clue as to what they really are. We like to pretend we understand them, but don't fool yourself into thinking we really do.

Actually, scientists do understand a lot about them and do understand a lot about what they really are. Your assertion is based on nothing whatsoever.

RealityCheck · Jan 16, 2014

Subduction Zone said:
Or the fact that it consists of a changing electromagnetic field.

That can be shown to be the case with very low frequency radio waves. The only difference between radio waves and light waves is the frequency.

You should say "visible light waves" because radio waves are also light waves - just not visible.

Wiccan_Child · Jan 16, 2014

RealityCheck said:
Actually, scientists do understand a lot about them and do understand a lot about what they really are. Your assertion is based on nothing whatsoever.

He sure does like to conflate "we don't know everything about X" with "we don't know anything about X".

Justatruthseeker · Jan 18, 2014

Loudmouth said:
Why do you doubt that light is made up of photons?

I don't doubt it is, I just do not believe that photons are the mediation source of the electromagnetic field. They are a byproduct of what is occurring. EM radiation is emitted even from a shielded particle with no outside influences, so it can not be the source, but merely a byproduct of what is occurring within the atom. Both positive and negative charges emit EM radiation, yet positive rays proceed from the atom outward, while negative proceed outward in to the particle. So you want photons, which are an emitted event, to now travel both ways, while still being emitted from both particles? Both positive and negative particles emit EM radiation, yet the field lines for both point in opposite directions, showing these fields have nothing to do with the photons themselves.

Photons

Regular Member

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Regular Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Contributor

Fact-Based Lifeform

Newbie

Contributor

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

No one important

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency