Any interaction, where energy is involved, is a kind of transfer, or change. The idea of a measurement of something being available in zero time, or a quantum process occuring without interaction, sounds pretty strange. There is research (of the mathematical/physical variety), that appears to indicate that this is possible. Photons can interact with each other, so can change each other via this interaction. Is this an observation? What about a single photon that becomes two? Or two photons that add together, and make one? How can a quantum state (a photon) be stored, frozen in time; written on a BEC at close to 0K?
Photons do not exist in zero time which is how they can change wavelength, interact with other photons, etc. A photon is a wave. On our scale, how big is a wave? It can be a tiny wave in a kid's pool or a tsunami. That is how "one photon" can be in a number of places at the same time as in the double slit experiment because "one photon" is a nonsense term, like one wave. Photons ate like holograms in that whatever their size, the whole of the information is stored on them. As a wave, photons can behave in unison as a far bigger wave (BEC). Stop all motion in a pool and it settles down to flat. Now drop something heavy into it and the whole pool behave like a single "entity". That is the same with the BEC where all casual motion is stopped, so all photons behave the same.
This doesn't convey very much to me. Can you explain what you mean by "zero time"? Or "photons do not exist"? I thought there had to be a transfer of momentum (an equivalent photon) via a reference laser, for the input to be stored as a frozen wave? Or to be read out? I understand superposition, how all the gas molecules become the same thing.
Expectation is demonstrated by Erwin Schrodinger's cat-in-a-box thought experiment. The decay of a radioactive sample releases a 'particle' due to the decay (or a photon with a lot of frequency, say--since electroweak and electromagnetic forces are connected, what the hey?); There's a 50/50 probability of this occuring in the time-frame that the cat is inside the box. Presumably the cat would "see" the decay if it stayed in the box for a long enough time (longer than the period that gives a 1 in 2 chance), or would avoid it by not staying inside the box for the interval of time "required" by the probability of decay (so the expectation changes, along with a change in the interval, no earth-shattering ideas there). Or say there's more than one cat, or more than one box, which would change the probability a bit (even arbitrarily). This is the same thing that happens when light is collected over time in astronomy. A single photon isn't a message (it's an indeterminate state). It can convey the fact that there is at least a probability (50/50?) that another photon will arrive, and the different frequencies (or same frequencies), will be information (a signal). Information is also the discrimination of difference--or relativity. The photons are connections that don't get seen, until they're entrained by electrons, either in pigment molecules (rhodopsin, chlorophyll), or a CCD or other surface of matter--where they unitarily add up to an overall pattern.
"How?" You don't know what gamma-gamma interaction is? If there is no such thing as a single photon, how can two photons not interact, at some possible future, or past, time?
Well, I know about photon-photon scattering: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But the process is suppressed by four powers of the fine structure constant, which means that it is very hard to observe.
Depends what you mean by "observe". We can observe single electrons, by fabricating a special surface for them to be captured against, and produce some kind of signal. Electrons (or atoms) observe photons. What sort of experiment is the one that "freezes" a pulse of (coherent) light, or slows it to a fraction of c?
Yes and I don't know, why such topic was moved into Pseudoscience sections. The mainstream science "proponents" (i.e. the ignorant trolls, who don't know about mainstream physics & experiments at all) are getting nervous with time..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I cannot have respect to such people, because they're demagogic liars and pseudoscientists as such. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The photon-photon scattering is well proven phenomena, resulting from the fact, every pair of photons is in dynamic equilibrium with particle-antiparticle pair, and these fermions can collide in-between. As this equilibrium is well pronounced for gamma radiation, where the probability of pair formation is highest, the dispersion of gamma light by photons of microwave background radiation can be observed in MAGIC type experiments independently. The MAGIC collaboration has detected a short flare (about 2 minutes) from the galaxy Mkn 501; this flare has been seen from energies of about 100 GeV to energies 100 times higher. The data show a time delay of about 4 minutes between the lowest and the highest energy gamma rays.
Only one problem with all this talk about our photon and that is you have yet to prove conclusively and unambiguously that the photon even exists. The burden of proof lies with the proponents of such a theory and as yet the photon is about as mythical as a religious entity such as God or even Shiva. Prove the existance of a photon that is unambiguous ! It is impossible to differentiate a photon from it's reflector or even it's measuring device. So it is impossible to determine whether what we experience as an effect is the result of a free traveling photon [ yet to be proved ] or an effect of inertia on an object of mass [ reflector ] which is more likely to be proved. Certainly an object of mass can be determined reasonably well and why we imply or infer that we need a mythical photon to cause the effect of light is just simply due to the misplaced confidence we have in a theory that appears to function well and our inability to think outside the box of our comfort zone. So before you start claiming pseudo scientists as being totally wacked [ for sure some are], I suggest you take a hard look at your own belief systems and work out who is being the greater pseudo scientist.
Don't let Ben catch you saying things like "photons are mythical", you're in deep doo-doo, pal. P.S. I would say we can see photons, or at least what they do to our eyes.
