Important experiment request: Distant single photon

[Theoretical]

Please, if you have access to equipment that can detect single photons in ***non-avalanche mode***, then I would greatly appreciate it if you could do this quick experiment for me. This experiment is for some extremely important research. See the last paragraph for details.

 

Experiment Equipment:

Photomultiplier tube with appropriate circuitry operating in non-avalanche mode, common inexpensive efficient LED (or laser diode if you wish), oscilloscope.

 

Experiment outline:

Place LED as far away as you can from a sensitive photomultiplier tube. Decrease LED DC current till you can barely detect the light with the PMT.

 

The maximum allowable LED current for this experiment depends on the LED viewing angle, the *effective* separation distance, and the PMT's response rate. Please contact me in private if you wish.

 

There are various ways to increase the effective separation distance. For example, reflecting the LED light back and forth between mirrors. An example is to shine the light through a small pinhole, which then shines on a rough metal surface which diffuses the light.

 

The goal is to operate the LED at a normal efficient DC current level (usually over 2mA), place the PMT far enough away from the LED so that, according to calculations, should show the single photon spikes on the oscilloscope.

 

Some history regarding this experiment: I found a simple clear cut method of detecting single photons at radio frequencies. It took a long time redesigning this experiment over and over to eliminate alternative explanations. The experimental results were shocking. There are absolutely no quantum properties to radio waves. The experiment showed classical waves. Since the radio experiments I've been racking my brains trying to figure it out. It's led to numerous math equations. Note: this thread is not about proving anything. This thread discussion is only for the above experiment. In due time I will produce a YouTube video detailing the radio wave experiments, along with some important breakthroughs. Lets just say that the days of Quantum Mechanics are coming to an end.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Theoretical

[swansont]

Visible photons are easier than RF photons, since you're talking ~2 eV vs less than a micro-eV. Which makes detecting above thermal noise an interesting challenge.

In due time I will produce a YouTube video detailing the radio wave experiments, along with some important breakthroughs. Lets just say that the days of Quantum Mechanics are coming to an end.

 

Right. A youtube video is going to have anywhere close to such an impact as opposed to pointing out flaws in methodology or background knowledge.

[Theoretical]

Visible photons are easier than RF photons, since you're talking ~2 eV vs less than a micro-eV. Which makes detecting above thermal noise an interesting challenge.

Visible gives more energy. Radio gives more time per wavelength.

[Enthalpy]

Hi Theoretical,

 

to reduce the number of photons transmitted to the detector, you can emit short pulses. Typical Led have about 50ns response time, a Vcsel rather 50ps.

 

In addition to a small hole, or several holes in series, you can also have a light absorber on the path. Some examples there

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84660-quantum-entanglement-need-explanation/page-2#entry822805

 

These are more practical than increasing the distance. Possibly a simple matter of wording; more generally than "distance" it would be the "attenuation".

 

To detect single optical photons, you need not only a very sensitive detector (like a photomultiplier). It takes also a very dark environment and excellent shielding from the source to the detector.

 

Now, I have some doubts about detecting individual photons at radiofrequencies. The photon noise gets predominant above many 10GHz with very quiet receivers, and radioastronomers have superconducting detectors at 300GHz that observe individual photons. It's seriously difficult and, after big efforts, has been achieved only at highest frequencies. "Antennas" from John D. Kraus has a chapter about background noise and antenna noise.

 

Would you tell us more about your experiment: frequency, sensitivity...? I suspect a numerical mistake somewhere.

[Strange]

Some history regarding this experiment: I found a simple clear cut method of detecting single photons at radio frequencies. It took a long time redesigning this experiment over and over to eliminate alternative explanations. The experimental results were shocking. There are absolutely no quantum properties to radio waves.

 

If there are no quantum properties, how did you detect a "single photon" - that is what "quantum properties" means.

But it has been feasible to generate single photons for a long time (using "non-existent" quantum effects):

http://www.mpg.de/551429/pressRelease200703091

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-power-photons-illuminate-quantum-technology.html

[Sensei]

The goal is to operate the LED at a normal efficient DC current level (usually over 2mA),

My LEDs AFAIK have 20-25 mA at full bright. But let's it be 2 mA.

 

It's still something like: 1.25*10^16 photons per second (idealized, assuming no lost)..

 

place the PMT far enough away from the LED so that, according to calculations, should show the single photon spikes on the oscilloscope.

How far do you want to go from it, if you have 1.25*10^16 photons emitted from LED per second?

 

Do you know inverse-square law? (light from star, lightbulb etc.)

If we apply inverse-square law to such quantity of photons per second, we have 1 photon per m2 of area per second, at distance equal to 31.5 millions meters from source..

[John Cuthber]

I found a simple clear cut method of detecting single photons at radio frequencies.

No you didn't.

Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

[Theoretical]

No takers? I'm guessing nobody has a light detector capable of detecting the "single photon" using the method detailed in this discussion.

 

Okay, so I'll settle for ***any*** type of experiment that indicates single photons. Please, anyone??? There are a few experiments online that claim to show single photons. The problem is they're always lacking in detail, and I have far too many possible issues with them. So if anyone has access to equipment which seems indicates the existence of the so-called photon, then ***please*** by all means forward the details to me. I will then ask you some specific detailed questions, which may require you to do some basic tests. When complete, I'm confident we'll see the reason why you're seeing what appears to be individual photons.

 

BTW, all of the double slit, quantum eraser, etc. experiments that claim to be emitting single photons, I would strongly suggest you take a detailed spectrum analysis of it. A pulse that is close to one wavelength has a bandwidth that is approximately equal to the frequency. For example, green light that is close to one wavelength per pulse will not be a specific frequency. It will have nearly as much red and blue as it has green. A prime example of this is the Scarcelli QM delayed choice quantum eraser experiment where they placed a narrow bandwidth filter before the double slit, thereby making the experiment flawed. Again, you cannot simultaneously have a short pulse and narrow BW. Another example: on YouTube a school lab shows the dimly lite blue light from a spontaneous parametric downconversion crystal. Unfortunately if your source emits what's even remotely blue in appearance then it's no where near a single wavelength. One should take a spectrum shot of the light. All of my research indicates the reason we can't see the photon path in properly designed double slit experiments is because light is always a wave and travels through both slits. If you think otherwise, then please by all means forward the details of your equipment and experiment that are showing individual photon events.

 

UsIng 50ps(50000fs) pulses is insufficient. Red light wavelength is ~2fs. Your pulse is 25000 wavelengths. And besides, that's forcing light to appear like a particle, especially when such PMTs avalanche. Thats why I propose to allow light to show you the individual photon, if it exists, by allowing light to spread out. You can do that by distancing the detector far away form the light source. This method allows you to source to emit light at normal levels to prevent any appreciable "photon bunching." IOW, if you analyze such light, you'll see the light intensity varies by a very slight amount. If you emit ultra low light, you end up with packet bursts. So when we emit at say one photon per wavelength (on average), we have a relatively smooth light source that spreads out (no laser focusing please) that according to the standard model should eventually at some distance show up on the detector as individual photons. My radio wavelength experiments and some visible light experiments show that will not happen, given a proper detector. I'm confident it show the same results for 660nm light as it did in my 7.3m (41MHz). BTW the GHz superconducting experiments I've read about use atoms as a detector in such a way that makes me uncomfortable. The problem I have with that is the atomic world behaves like a digital world. My 41MHz radiowave experiment receiver and amplifier are linear, and have no avalanche effect. I suspects that's the reason they show a classical wave at sub hf levels. I'm using the free electrons in copper wire at normal room temperatures as a receiving antenna, which is well known to be linear down to at least one atto (1e-18) amp. Additionally, modern transistor amplifiers are exceptionally linear.

 

Here's one of my visible light (660nm) experiment. Take a typical 90% efficient low power LED, no focusing lens, clear plastic. Calculate the photons per wavelength. Go far far away or bounce it off metal surface mirrors. In my experiment the detector was receiving h*f / 1.5e+9 amount of light per wavelength, with no noticeable spectrum broadening down to a few nanometers. Spectrum broadening is where you find pulse width, if any exists. When time permits I'd like to detect down to at least one picometer change in spectrum broadening. So far this means that if the single photon exist, it must be at least a thousand wavelengths long, and I'm confident more accurate experiment will show the so-called single photon is *at least* a billion wavelengths long. That's far beyond one wavelength.

 

Someone was asking for details of my radio experiment. This is a related topic, but still different. So this is not the thread to discuss it, but I'll outline it. All of the details will be in a video and eventually pdf, but that requires a lot of work and time. Since the radio experiment is a small fraction of the work, I'd like to complete one of the final challenges: What **exactly** is Gravity and the electric field. So far I've narrowed it down to a few options-- almost done lol. The theory is making some interesting predictions. Anyhow, it would be nice to include one large video that should capture the attention of everyone, rather than one radio experiment. Off the top of my head, here's a rough list of what's complete so far, and these are clearcut simple derived from well established macro scale classical equations:

 

* Mathematical derivation showing that mass inertia is caused by the same electromagnetism that causes induction in wires.

 

* Mathematical derivation showing that photon momentum is caused by classical electromagnetism.

 

* Mathematical derivation showing that compton scattering is caused by classical electromagnetism. Yes it shows how the emr frequency changes.

 

* Mathematical derivation showing how and why light traverses at twice the angle toward a massive object as compared to matter.

 

* Mathematical derivation showing Einsteins relativity using a classical approach, without the Twin paradox issue. Although presently I'm in the process of building an experiment to see if my approach is correct. If it's incorrect, then this will be left out of the video and pdf.

 

* Mathematical derivation showing that E=mc^2 in matter is the sum total of the electric & magnetic fields. Scientists were working on this, but they had problems arriving at the full mc^2. Not sure if they ever solved the problem, but my derivation immediately got the correct full mc^2 value.

 

* Can't forget the terrifying details that clearly shows "Bell's inequality experiment" are precisely predicted by classical mechanics. Yes I will use well known detailed scholarly peer review Bell's inequality experiments.

 

* And a lot more. Hopefully there will be time to show how well established classical equations clearly predict the atom and it's wave nature. One example will show the hydrogen atom and give the correct mass energy.

 

 

An outline of my radio wavelength experiment: 40MHz to 49MHz. Transmitting antenna is appreciably away from the the receiving unit, usually greater than 1 wavelength. Simple amplifier is connected to receiving antenna. Precise amp input impedance is know, and therefore the amount of energy per wavelength is known. Yes modern electronics is fully capable of detecting such levels and far far far less. Of course amp noise at RT is greater than the signal, so you have to be clever. I have a design that will allow me to actually see the emr signal, which I was eventually going to build, but it's now unnecessary due to a much simpler method I finally thought of. It's so simple is embarrassing to have taken so long to think of it. Rather than trying to see the time domain signal, you can tell what's happening through the spectrum. No, this is not the method of actually seeing the signal. That method is complex. This method is simple. You take thousands of spectrum snapshots, which allows you to easily see the signal over noise through the spectrum. So the receiving antenna was definitely picking up sub hf energy per wavelength. The received signal was a sine wave void of pulses or packets. The experiment shows that the amount of electromagnetic energy per wavelength is not in quantum levels of hf.

 

A future radio wave experiment will consist of detecting sub-photon pulses (less than hf per entire pulse) from two detectors simultaneously. The great thing about working with radio frequencies is the precise control you have over the signal. So the transmitter will do one wavelength pulse. Of course there will be higher frequency harmonics, but fortunately we have a spectrum so we can focus on the exact frequency and ignore the higher frequency harmonics. As stated, the experiment will consist of thousands runs. Each run consists of two spectrums, one spectrum for each receiver since we trying to detect the sub-photon in both detectors ***simultaneously***. The software will then multiply the amplitude of the two spectrums. Actually it will only be one frequency per spectrum since we're only interested in one frequency. So if only one of the detectors receives the photon at a time, then one of the detectors will always be zero. So zero times anything equals zero. Remember the noise is not coherent, and will be low compared to the signal. If the signal equals the predicted value, then this shows the single photon does not exists. After seeing the experimental results of hundreds of first radio wavelength experiment I can safely predict this experiment too will show the same results.

 

 

Again, let's not get off topic. This thread is not about proving anything. Please, if you have access to equipment that indicates single photons, then please contact me.

[Strange]

No takers? I'm guessing nobody has a light detector capable of detecting the "single photon" using the method detailed in this discussion.

 

http://www.hamamatsu.com/us/en/technology/innovation/photoncounting/index.html

https://www.picoquant.com/products/category/photon-counting-detectors

 

You need some sort of multiplier/avalanche/amplification device because the amount of energy associated with a single photon is so small.

 

 

Many photodetectors can be configured to detect individual photons, each with relative advantages and disadvantages,^[1] including a photomultiplier, geiger counter, single-photon avalanche diode, superconducting nanowire single-photon detector, transition edge sensor, or scintillation counter. Charge-coupled devices can also sometimes be used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting

[John Cuthber]

 

Okay, so I'll settle for ***any*** type of experiment that indicates single photons. Please, anyone???

Did you think that was actually going to be a challenge?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillation_counter#Gamma

Are you aware of this?

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-light-sensitive-cells-frog-eyes-photons.html

[Sensei]

There are a few experiments online that claim to show single photons. The problem is they're always lacking in detail, and I have far too many possible issues with them.

How about photon-matter interactions, as showed in this video?

 

Keywords for Google: photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, electron-positron annihilation, pair production, photodisintegration.

[Theoretical]

Are you aware of this?

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-light-sensitive-cells-frog-eyes-photons.html

No I was not aware frogs could see that low. In a matter about 15 minutes of eye adjustment in a dark room I was able to see an LED that was producing 10pA by placing the LED a few millimeters away from my eye, which allowed me to see ~ 1/1000th of the red LED plate, which means I was able to see light that was emitting ~10 pA. Multiply that times 1V (ultra low at such levels) and a gracious 1% efficiency (that's magnitudes higher than every graph I've seen for LED efficiency at such levels) and we get 100fW. Of course that's no where near a frogs vision considering I can detect maybe 1/30th of a second pulse.

How about photon-matter interactions, as showed in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p47RBPiOCo

 

Keywords for Google: photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, electron-positron annihilation, pair production, photodisintegration.

Lol now that's funny. No, the video is lacking in details.

[Sensei]

Lol now that's funny. No, the video is lacking in details.

Do you know how to make x-rays.. ?

 

Lacking in detail: because it's too much data. And you most likely don't know it.

f.e. for every isotope (there is 3142 unstable/stable isotopes of 118 elements), there is needed different energy of photon to disintegrate.

 

f.e. to disintegrate Deuterium there is needed 2.22 MeV energy.

Scientists use highly accelerated alpha particle to hit Deuterium, so it'll split to free proton and free neutron.

Neutron is then used for other experiments. f.e. Neutron scattering. Neutron capture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_scattering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture

[Strange]

The problem is they're always lacking in detail

 

What sources of information are you using? If you are looking at news stories and yootoob videos, then you won't find any detail. But if you look at primary sources, you should find more. For example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=single+photon+counting

[Theoretical]

 

What sources of information are you using? If you are looking at news stories and yootoob videos, then you won't find any detail. But if you look at primary sources, you should find more. For example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=single+photon+counting

I've read plenty of science experiments that include details in a PDF. Trust me, they're lacking in way too much detail. Again, I need to speak with someone who has access to such equipment so I can ask them question. Questions they've probably never thought about.

 

So this is about finding the truth. If someone out there wants to know, please contact me. Private message is fine.

[Strange]

 

Questions they've probably never thought about.

 

What sort of questions? People here might be able to answer, even if they have done these specific experiments.

[Phi for All]

So this is about finding the truth. If someone out there wants to know, please contact me. Private message is fine.

 

!

Moderator Note

Private message is not fine, this is a discussion forum with members, both amateur and professional, and we all prefer more transparency. Also, you're ignoring evidence that's being presented because you claim it lacks detail, which it does NOT.

 

You're encouraged to ask questions, but please don't try to claim you have new science when it's clear you don't understand what mainstream science (our absolute best current explanations) is trying to tell you.

 

And there is no truth in science. Just the explanation best supported by evidence.

 

Please don't respond to this modnote in this thread. Report it if you object.

[Sensei]

I've read plenty of science experiments that include details in a PDF. Trust me, they're lacking in way too much detail.

 

These details physicists learned most likely on studies..

So obviousness to scientists are skipped in PDF, to not bore reader.

 

Again, I need to speak with someone who has access to such equipment so I can ask them question.

 

How about starting from learning everything from beginning.. ?

 

It's not a problem making f.e. particle detector.

Making your own Cloud Chamber costs $20.

Device making couple millions volts you can have below $200.

Device making x-rays you can have for $30 (Cockcroft-Walton generator).

But you will need to build your own vacuum pump or buy one.

 

It's a matter of how much serious you want to be in your science discovery. How much you want to spend money and time on it.

 

ps. I can give you link to must-have devices for physicists in PM (where you could buy them).

Edited August 18, 2015 by Sensei

[Theoretical]

 

What sort of questions? People here might be able to answer, even if they have done these specific experiments.

The questions may vary depending on the data they provide. First, they need enough equipment. If their PMT doesn't provide sufficient graphical data in the datasheet then I would need to have them do some tests using an oscilloscope to find the reaction time of the PMT and to verify its indeed not in avalanche mode. Also I would need to know how linear the PMT is. I would need to need to know the light source efficiency and spread angle in order to calculate how far the detector needs to be from the source. If by chance they detect "single photons" with such a setup (doubt it very much), then I would ask them to move the detector farther away from the source to see if the detector results matches the predicted results. If it doesn't, then it's likely they're not seeing single photons, but rather they're seeing an effect in the detector. An example is certain types of Polaroid film that show what appears as single photons in low light levels. Now of course we're talking about low light levels that consist of millions of photons. The film is merely acting like a digital switch. When one studies PMTs they learn just how high of an amplification is required to see the so-called single photons. In electrical engineering it's insanely difficult to create an amp with such gains beyond DC without causing self oscillations and avalache effects, which would give the impression of particles. Ah that reminds me, I would also need to see a graph of the detectors light range.

 

!

Moderator Note

Private message is not fine, this is a discussion forum with members, both amateur and professional, and we all prefer more transparency. Also, you're ignoring evidence that's being presented because you claim it lacks detail, which it does NOT.

 

You're encouraged to ask questions, but please don't try to claim you have new science when it's clear you don't understand what mainstream science (our absolute best current explanations) is trying to tell you.

 

And there is no truth in science. Just the explanation best supported by evidence.

 

Please don't respond to this modnote in this thread. Report it if you object.

I would rather people reply in the discussion here rather than private message, but some people may want to keep it private for whatever reasons. We can do whatever they want.

[Strange]

The important point about photons is not whether you can detect one or not (you can) but the fact that light is quantised. This is shown by the photoelectric effect even if you detect a billion photons at a time.

[Mordred]

I was in flight but a single photon detector was requested.

 

http://www.toshiba.eu/eu/Cambridge-Research-Laboratory/Quantum-Information-Group/Quantum-Devices/Photon-Number-Resolving-Detector/

 

There are other single quanta/photon detectors.

 

They are fairly new on the market. I certainly don't own one.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

The important point about photons is not whether you can detect one or not (you can) but the fact that light is quantised. This is shown by the photoelectric effect even if you detect a billion photons at a time.

Why isn't it showing up at radio frequencies? Why are there valid classical explanations for all photoelectric effects?

I was in flight but a single photon detector was requested.

 

http://www.toshiba.eu/eu/Cambridge-Research-Laboratory/Quantum-Information-Group/Quantum-Devices/Photon-Number-Resolving-Detector/

 

There are other single quanta/photon detectors.

 

They are fairly new on the market. I certainly don't own one.

Aw I was looking for someone who has one capable of detecting "single photons" without an avalanche effect.

[swansont]

No takers? I'm guessing nobody has a light detector capable of detecting the "single photon" using the method detailed in this discussion.

 

 

You immediately ruled out one of the more common devices used without explaining why it was necessary. Sounds a waste of time.

[Theoretical]

 

You immediately ruled out one of the more common devices used without explaining why it was necessary. Sounds a waste of time.

What device? A PMT in avalache mode?

 

Yes they can use a PMT, but it must not be in avalache mode.

[swansont]

Why isn't it showing up at radio frequencies?

 

Because the energy of an RF photon is way too small to cause ionization

What device? A PMT in avalache mode?

 

Yes they can use a PMT, but it must not be in avalache mode.

 

My point is you didn't explain why not.

Why are there valid classical explanations for all photoelectric effects?

 

There are? What are they?