There is a problem with equation E = h f

[Polymath257]

A helpful word of advice. Polymath probably understands physics better than anyone else here. He is also very willing to explain concepts, if asked politely. Instead of assuming there is something wrong with the basic physics it might be wiser to assume that there is something wrong with your understanding. He can and almost certainly will help you.

I just want to point out that @LegionOnomaMoi has very good posts on this.

 

[Yerda]

No. Amplitude of electromagnetic waves is related to how many photons make up the wave.

This is what I thought. Ta.

In QED there are no individual photons. There are no single particles at all in relativistic QFT (and QED is a relativistic QFT) which is fundamentally a many-body theory.
But yes, in a manner of speaking in QM individual "particles" have amplitude.

Those subjects are over my head. Thanks.

 

[Unes]

Thank you LegionOnomaMoi,
I do appreciate the time you spent explaining all those details, even though I am not sure if understood any part of it, but they helped me to get a sense of the complexity of the subjects that it is under scrutiny, I learnt none of the scientific layers has ended to any firm conclusion, and each layer has opened up a deeper layer with more complexity, that it imposes some qualifying limitations on the previous layer, and in this process we cannot get any FIRM answer to our simple question about our observable daily experiences.

 

[Unes]

Photon numbers are not in general well-defined in any theory, but in QED as in relativistic quantum field theory in general particle number is not only ill-defined generally it is not a conserved quantity.

. . . .

But when we speak of e.g., single-photons in e.g., reference to quantum control or quantum engineering or any number of other technologies which by their design detect single photons it is important to be aware of the fact that we do so not because we believe we have somehow made photon number a well-defined concept or produced experimental evidence against relativistic quantum theory. Rather, it is because the tools we use to prepare, measure, and manipulate physical systems are limited by their design.
. . . . .

mechanical states are given by rays in Hilbert space even in non-relativistic QFT one must content with the infinite degrees of freedom required for the quantization of electromagnetic fields (whether one uses the Dirac equation and Fock space or path integrals or whatever).
. . . . .

So-called "second quantization" or the extension of quantum theory to interactions (including e.g., the interaction of a photon with itself or an electron with its field) involves considerable difficulties that took many years and many great minds to overcome (or even to understand) and even graduate level texts on quantum mechanics will not generally include more than a hint of the problems QED solves such as the nature of light.
. . . . .

Precisely because QED developed after we knew any fundamental physical theory must describe systems in a manner that incorporated time on an equivalent footing with space,
. . . . .

Experimentalists work with devices and experimental designs that are informed by theory and which yield results interpreted by theory. One speaks of electromagnetic waves or single-photon detection in experiments not because one believes experiments require or even support the existence to such phenomena as such.
. . . . .

In fact, the word "particle" in modern physics is something of an unfortunate tradition. Modern particle physics deals with unobservable interactions with unobservable and undetectable systems using a convenient, fictitious language and a correspondingly precise, rigorous mathematics.

Particles like photons are terms used to describe groupings of patterns of results yielded by experiments/detectors appropriate to high-energy subatomic processes. Theory is required to make any sense out of the chaotic results of high-energy collisions or even tracks in cloud chambers. QED is such a theory, as is the standard model of particle physics which incorporates it. In this as in all such models, quantum mechanical descriptions require taking into account energy fluctuations and therefore particle creation and annihilation. The dynamics of such systems, when described relativistically, are given by equations in which single particles can't exist (the vacuum state is a many-body system). Already in quantum mechanics the problems with treating systems as isolated as in classical physics may be readily seen in the issues of nonseparability. But in relativistic quantum theory, one has to contend with the dissolution of even the fiction of single particles in principle.[/QUOTE]

Thank you LegionOnomaMoi,

If I am not mistaken according to the latest theory of physics the identity of a single particle to a certain extent falls into the domain of uncertainty. If that is the case at the microscopic level, then some of the orderly phenomenon that we are experiencing at the macroscopic level should never materialize. It sounds there is a disconnect between the findings at these two levels. Case and points:

Case I: when experimentally an equipment generates one photon, and this photon gets detected by a photo-multiplier, and it registers a photon is detected, then how these claims can to be interpreted in order to be in harmony with the findings of the latest theories in physics?

Case II: if the identity of a single particle harbors certain uncertainty, then I cannot imagine how the cooling of the oscillating atoms at very low temperature can be achieved with laser light? Because the atoms in the crystal they oscillate in opposite phase from their neighboring atoms, and also in order the laser light to reduce the oscillation of the target atom, it has to be in opposite phase from it. I envisioned this process requires great precision in many parts in order to be successful, if these assumptions are correct, then the identity of the involved particles should be known with certain accuracy.

Case III: if according to our latest theories each particle is so elusive and so fuzzy that its identity cannot be defined accurately, then that makes the interaction of two particles even much more uncertain, with this chaotic condition for the system of mirror reflection, when we factor in the chaos that the reflected image have gone through, then the reflected images from the surface of a mirror should never resemble to the incoming images, and the Optic Law for mirror reflection should never materialize. And QED all-path method and the wave function method should not be allowed to implement the detection point which it is provided by the optic law, into their configurations, the detection point represents the CERTAINTY in the direction of the reflection. QED methods are supposed to discover the direction of the reflection by their own random methods, and not to steal it from the optic law.

 

[Unes]

I noticed in my previous post the “QUOTE” section had an error, so, here is the corrected post.

Photon numbers are not in general well-defined in any theory, but in QED as in relativistic quantum field theory in general particle number is not only ill-defined generally it is not a conserved quantity.
. . . .
But when we speak of e.g., single-photons in e.g., reference to quantum control or quantum engineering or any number of other technologies which by their design detect single photons it is important to be aware of the fact that we do so not because we believe we have somehow made photon number a well-defined concept or produced experimental evidence against relativistic quantum theory. Rather, it is because the tools we use to prepare, measure, and manipulate physical systems are limited by their design.
. . . . .
mechanical states are given by rays in Hilbert space even in non-relativistic QFT one must content with the infinite degrees of freedom required for the quantization of electromagnetic fields (whether one uses the Dirac equation and Fock space or path integrals or whatever).
. . . . .
So-called "second quantization" or the extension of quantum theory to interactions (including e.g., the interaction of a photon with itself or an electron with its field) involves considerable difficulties that took many years and many great minds to overcome (or even to understand) and even graduate level texts on quantum mechanics will not generally include more than a hint of the problems QED solves such as the nature of light.
. . . . .
Precisely because QED developed after we knew any fundamental physical theory must describe systems in a manner that incorporated time on an equivalent footing with space,
. . . . .
Experimentalists work with devices and experimental designs that are informed by theory and which yield results interpreted by theory. One speaks of electromagnetic waves or single-photon detection in experiments not because one believes experiments require or even support the existence to such phenomena as such.
. . . . .
In fact, the word "particle" in modern physics is something of an unfortunate tradition. Modern particle physics deals with unobservable interactions with unobservable and undetectable systems using a convenient, fictitious language and a correspondingly precise, rigorous mathematics.

Particles like photons are terms used to describe groupings of patterns of results yielded by experiments/detectors appropriate to high-energy subatomic processes. Theory is required to make any sense out of the chaotic results of high-energy collisions or even tracks in cloud chambers. QED is such a theory, as is the standard model of particle physics which incorporates it. In this as in all such models, quantum mechanical descriptions require taking into account energy fluctuations and therefore particle creation and annihilation. The dynamics of such systems, when described relativistically, are given by equations in which single particles can't exist (the vacuum state is a many-body system). Already in quantum mechanics the problems with treating systems as isolated as in classical physics may be readily seen in the issues of nonseparability. But in relativistic quantum theory, one has to contend with the dissolution of even the fiction of single particles in principle.

Thank you LegionOnomaMoi,

If I am not mistaken according to the latest theory of physics the identity of a single particle to a certain extent falls into the domain of uncertainty. If that is the case at the microscopic level, then some of the orderly phenomenon that we are experiencing at the macroscopic level should never materialize. It sounds there is a disconnect between the findings at these two levels. Case and points:

Case I: when experimentally an equipment generates one photon, and this photon gets detected by a photo-multiplier, and it registers a photon is detected, then how these claims can be interpreted in order to be in harmony with the findings of the latest theories in physics?

Case II: if the identity of a single particle harbors certain uncertainty, then I cannot imagine how the cooling of the oscillating atoms at very low temperature can be achieved with laser light? Because the atoms in the crystal they oscillate in opposite phase from their neighboring atoms, and also in order the laser light to reduce the oscillation of the target atom, it has to be in opposite phase from it. I envisioned this process requires great precision in many parts in order to be successful, if these assumptions are correct, then the identity of the involved particles should be known with certain accuracy.

Case III: if according to our latest theories each particle is so elusive and so fuzzy that its identity cannot be defined accurately, then that makes the interaction of two particles even much more uncertain, with this chaotic condition for the system of mirror reflection, when we factor in the chaos that the reflected image have gone through, then the reflected images from the surface of a mirror should never resemble to the incoming images, and the Optic Law for mirror reflection should never materialize. And QED all-path method and the wave function method should not be allowed to implement the detection point into their configurations. The detection point represents the CERTAINTY in the direction of the reflection that it is provided by the Optic Law. QED methods are supposed to discover the direction of the reflection by their own random methods, instead of stealing it from the optic law.

I think QED's methods for mirror reflection harbor a critical flaw and they should not be accepted as legitimate scientific arguments.