Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Tunneling

M

Mr Stonebeach

Jan 1, 1970
0
....
It was a paper by Lamb and Scully (1968). Apparently it never made
it into a refereed journal, but the fact that it has Lamb's name
on it makes it worth reading. Copies float about on the web.

They seem to do just the standard time-dependent
perturbation theory, but they do it in the full density matrix
formalism. So, it would take more wading through equations
than I feel like doing now, to see where the trick is done.

Did you notice that Lamb and Scully explicitly say in the
first page of this paper that they don't think (i) blackbody
radiation, (ii) Compton effect, (iii) spontaneous emission
or (iv) Lamb shift, could be explained without quantizing
the EM field - i.e. introducing the photon concept? They
only claim to cover the photoelectric effect in the paper.

Regards,
Mikko
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
No such thing as single photons, either. All they do is to reduce
the light intensity until the average time between events from the
detecting device exceeds the lightspeed delay of the apparatus. They
then declare that there can never be more than a single photon inside
and marvel at the persistence of wave effects.

Light detectors are made of matter and the interaction of light and
matter is quantized. But that doesn't imply that light is quantized
by itself.

Jeroen Belleman


than is necessary for


Well that give us a bit of an issue explaining photodiode shot noise.

?-)
 
G

Glenn

Jan 1, 1970
0

To Phil and Jeroen


15 February 2007, Physics web: Photons denied a glimpse of their observer:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221072235/physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/16
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/feb/15/photons-denied-a-glimpse-of-their-observer
Quote: "...
To test for this possibility he thought of an experiment in which the
decision to observe the photons is made only after they have been emitted.
...."

Illustration of Roch's experiment (not on-line anymore):
http://web.archive.org/web/20070218...eb.org/articles/news/11/2/16/1/Interferometer
Quote: "...
they could confirm with certainty that unobserved photons behave like
waves (i.e. interfere), while observed photons behave like particles
(i.e. do not interfere)
...."

Glenn
 
J

Jeroen

Jan 1, 1970
0
http://web.archive.org/web/20010605043443/zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/wave_particle.gif

To Phil and Jeroen

15 February 2007, Physics web: Photons denied a glimpse of their observer:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221072235/physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/16

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/feb/15/photons-denied-a-glimpse-of-their-observer

Quote: "...
To test for this possibility he thought of an experiment in which the
decision to observe the photons is made only after they have been emitted.
..."

Illustration of Roch's experiment (not on-line anymore):
http://web.archive.org/web/20070218...eb.org/articles/news/11/2/16/1/Interferometer

Quote: "...
they could confirm with certainty that unobserved photons behave like
waves (i.e. interfere), while observed photons behave like particles
(i.e. do not interfere)
..."

The sneaky little buggers! ;-)

Jeroen Belleman
 
What would he care? He'll just take more taxpayer cash and stash it
somewhere, just in case it still has any value after he leaves office.

He's made *lots* of rich friends, which are far more valuable (see:
Clinton).
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
What makes me feel a bit more comfortable about
QM phenomena is the idea that the arrow of time is a
*macroscopic* notion. Our universe has started from
a low-entropy state and it is heading towards higher
entropy states. Laws of physics are time-symmetric
and the future is distinguished from the past only
being more disordered.

Because entropy is a property of a large collection
of particles, it is misleading to say that the microscopic
phenomena are encountering the arrow of time
like we humans do. They follow the microscopic
laws of physics which are time-reversible and into
which the entropy does not enter. Hence the order of
cause and effect can change places at the microscopic
level.

The causal order becomes fixed only when the original
microscopic degrees of freedom begin to interact
with a larger and larger number of degrees of freedom
in the amplifying device, and finally with the degrees
of freedom of the experimentalist's brain. This was
stated in the Copenhagen intepretation that the
complete experiment must be described, from the
classical stimulus to the classical position of
the indicator needle, before one can discuss about
the experiment. Nowadays the Copenhagen is not the
last word any more.

That's why popular science reporters feel the awe
when tunneling appears to happen much faster than
speed of light (although it does not have measurable
macroscopic consequences), or spooky interactions
seem to occur instantaneously (although they cannot
be used to send classical interaction). The reporter
extends his personal feeling about what time is
to the microscopic realm, where the notion is not
applicable in the common-sense way.

I don't know how well such no-microscopic-causality
way of thinking has gotten formalized. It definitely has
its roots in the idea of decoherence and Kramer's
transactional intepretation of QM. Still, I believe
that one of the key problems in quantum gravity
is how tho get rid of the special status that the
time has in the laws of physics - so I assume
there are still pieces lacking.

Regards,
Mikko

For anyone interested i have listened to an audiobook version of Brian
Green's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos". Which eventually goes through
all this at a rather borderline subtechnical level. (no Math).

?-)
 
G

George Herold

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 25/03/13 18.40, George Herold wrote:
...
So I have two questions;
Anyone know of a good review paper on low voltage zener physics.
And are there any tunnel diodes still in production?
Thanks,
George H.
Hi George
You can make/discover your own tunneldiodes - actually components with
negative differential resistance:
By Nyle Steiner K7NS 2001.
Zinc Negative Resistance RF Amplifier for Crystal Sets and Regenerative
Receivers Uses No Tubes or Transistors:http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/els/znrfamp2-el.htm
-
Neon lamps can also function as amplifiers ;-)
Neon Lamp Tricks! Neon Lamp Multivibrator:http://donklipstein.com/sillyne2.html
Citat: "...This is an oscillator circuit using two neon lamps, two
resistors, and one capacitor..."
-
Solid state negative differential resistance components was discovered
several times about 100 years ago:
Cristadyne: Semiconductor archaeology or tribute to unknown precursors:http://www.a-reny.com/iexplorer/cristadyne.html
Quote: "...In 1923, Oleg Losev [O. V. Lossev, Lossew] (1903-1942) ( See
link below ) managed to make a high frequency generator using such a
detector. But it was polarized. This indicates that this diode had a
characteristic curve in which a negative slope was present. And this
makes one think of the tunnel effect diode invented a half a century
later...These layouts where part of what one called CRYSTADYNE [or
Cristadyne, Crystodyne ] systems. But in those days, the technical
performance and industrial ease of the new increasing valve technology
made these layouts to be ignored, and then forgotten..."
The Wireless World and Radio Review. October 1, 1924 and October 8,
1924: "The Crystal As A Generator And Amplifier" by Victor Gabel.
Radio News, September, 1924, pages 294-295, 431: The Crystodyne Principle:http://earlyradiohistory.us/1924cry.htm
Quote: "...SEVERAL  experimenters have observed that some contacts, such
as crystal and metal or crystal and carbon generally employed as
detectors may produce undamped oscillations of any frequency, exactly as
the vacuum tube oscillator. The same contact may also be utilized as an
amplifier. Oscillating crystals are not new since they were investigated
as far back as 1906 by well known engineers, but it was not until lately
that a Russian engineer, Mr. O. V. Lossev, succeeded in finding some
interesting uses for oscillating crystals..."
Radio News, September, 1924, page 291: A Sensational Radio Invention By
HUGO GERNSBACK:http://earlyradiohistory.us/1924sens.htm
Quote: "...Stated in a few words, the invention encompasses an
oscillating crystal...In other words, THE  CRYSTAL  NOW  ACTUALLY
REPLACES  THE  VACUUM  TUBE. That this is a revolutionary radio
invention need be emphasized no further. [Here Hugo Gernsback was way
ahead of his time]...We can not only detect with the crystal, but we can
also amplify with it...we can now also transmit with the Crystodyne,
and, as a matter of fact, a number of students in Russia have actually
sent messages with such sets over distances of more than three-quarters
of a mile during the past few months..."
Bell Labs � The Transistor � Other Claims to the Invention:http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/belllabs_transistor1.html
Quote: "...This effect, he stated, was discovered by Dr W. H. Eccles in
1910, and remarked: �It is hard to realize that it took about ten years
for practical active crystal-diode circuits to appear, in spite of
Ditcham's reminder�circuits that included both RF and AF
amplification...Most of the credit for creating practical devices [of
this kind] goes to O. V. Lossev of Russia, whether or not he knew of
Eccles' pioneer work a decade earlier..."
Glenn
PS: Happy nutting...or neon lamping...
Hi Glenn,  Thanks,  I'm not so much looking for a negative resistance
device as I am for tunneling.
(If I had a tunnel diode on hand I'd want to look at the I-V curve at
very low voltage.. way before the first peak in current.)

Want a few TDs to play with? I have a bunch. There was a dusty bin full of them
at Halted (or was it Hakltek?) , 10 cents each.

--

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Incwww..highlandtechnology.com  jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, our polish secretary brought me some TD's on Dyngus day. Thanks!

http://www.dyngusdaybuffalo.com/
Now all she needs are pussy willows and a squirt gun.

(The end of lent is cause for great celebration around here.)

George H.
 
M

Mr Stonebeach

Jan 1, 1970
0
It is so incredibly obvious that I really fail to understand why physisicks
get confused about it,

This comment reminds me of the ch16-1 of the Feynman lectures...

Regards,
Mikko
 
T

Tauno Voipio

Jan 1, 1970
0
This comment reminds me of the ch16-1 of the Feynman lectures...

Regards,
Mikko

If quantum mechanics does not feel weird, you have not understood it.

(From QM lectures about half a century ago)
 
G

Glenn

Jan 1, 1970
0
(answer is sent to sci.electronics.design )

Half a century ago...
Let me state something:
*If things look like 'magic' or 'weird' THEN you have not understood it,*
None of them physisicks understood it, all went for 'calculate and shutup',
because of that old joke, I have told it many times on Usenet
....

Hi Jan

Only if reductionism works everywhere.

An emergent phenomena can not be reduced to smaller parts and still work
as the original phenomena!

One liter of hydrogen gas can be subdivided into two half liter of
hydrogen gas and stil behave as hydrogen gas. This volume halving can be
done many time - and gas still behaves as the original volume hydrogen gas.

But if you disassemble a hydrogen atom in an electron and a proton, the
two particle separatly will not behave as the original atom.

The (obvious) conclusion is, the atom is an emergent phenomena. A
hydrogen and lithium atom behaves differently. A H2 molecule behaves
differently than a lonely hydrogen atom.

The emergent QM connection Quantum entanglement (Albert Einstein
"slang": Spooky connection) only exists until one of the particle are
"observed"/measured.

Reductionism works very fine, but at quantum level, reductionism looses
ground.

An atom is "magic", a lighted neon lamp (plasma) is "magic". A star like
our sun is "magic", because it changes radically, if you subdivide it
many times, and at some point it will be very dim. If you divide a
living standing human vertically, it will not be a living human any more
- ergo a human is "magic" (emergent phenomena)!

(I am not a physicist, so if there are any physicists that acknowledge
it or not, I am listening)

/Glenn
 
Top