Is there any experimental evidence that some quanton (electron, neutron, proton, photon, so on) ever transmutes into a corpuscle ?
Lots and lots and lots of experimental proofs of their de Broglie wavelength, and Dirac-Schrödinger wave-length, of their de Broglie's intrinsic frequency mc²/h and Dirac-Schrödinger electromagnetic frequency 2 m c²/h.
Lots and lots of experimental proofs of their optical width and optical fuzzy length of each, depending on the experimental condition.
However, these experimental proofs contradict what is taught in every handbook, in every lecture room. What is taught is magical and mystic corpuscles, and calculations of the probability of apparition of magical corpuscle.
But when and how a photon transmutes into corpuscle ?
When and how a proton transmutes into corpuscle ?
When and how a neutron transmutes into corpuscle ?
When and how an electron transmutes into corpuscle ?
For instance, since 1921 the Ramsauer-Townsend effect proves that the electron IS its de Broglie's wave. So the Ramsauer-Townsend effect is heavily censured in every handbooks, in every oral teachings.
So on with the censures of the experimental facts.
Have you an experimental proof of the supposed corpuscles ?
What do you mean by corpuscle? Is it Photon? If not, what attributes do you attribute to a corpuscle?
Attribute : To be "very small", as taught by our teachers.
Say, much smaller than an atom, for an electron. Etc.
But haven't the corpuscles of those decades are identified as photons in our present day understanding?
@Vikash Pandey. So please develop the properties of what you call "photons", and what are your experimental procedures.
Isn't the theory of Electromagnetic wave propagation already developed and well accepted and experimentally verified? Where is the issue?
I don't recall reading or being taught about electrons or photons transmuting into corpuscles. Can you clarify what you believe is taught in "every textbook" and "every lecture room"
I don't have any recent texts to hand, but both Dicke & Wittke's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" and Richard Feynman's "QED" seem to omit the transmutation process you describe.
As I understand it, quantum electrodynamics describes how light and matter interact. It gives a pretty good description of how photons and electrons behave in terms of measurable outcomes, and produces quantitative predictions which have been verified experimentally.
According to the standard model of particle physics, protons and neutrons are not fundamental particles, but are each composed of three up and down quarks. They are already smaller than an atom. Is there a reason why they should transmute into something different or smaller?
Free neutrons do decay into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino, but I don't think that is what you are referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay
Of course they do not consider the transmutation into corpuscles, as they assume since 1905 that any quanton IS ALREADY a corpuscle, BUT affected with strange and magic properties.
However all the quantitive laws of optics, including the radiocristallography, contradict this surrepticious corpuscular hypothesis.
For instance the Bragg Law, the Sherrer law, the length of coherence in interference experiments, the width of coherence in anti-reflective coatings, or in interferential colors, the electron-phonon interactions, the Imbert-Fedorov and Goos-Hanchen effects, the Ramsauer-Townsed effect, the neutronic radiocrystallography, the Helmut Rauch and Ulrich Bonse experiment, the Shariar experiment, so on. Plus all the laws of spectral absorptions.
So the situation is that any individual quanton is an individual wave for the remaining of the physics, but is a magic corpuscle for the teachers of QM, with a magic duality, and a cruel uncertainty of the immortal prophet.
Now : where are the experimental results supporting the corpuscular ideation ?
Dear Jacques Lavau,
the typical example is the detection of single photons behind a double slit. On a film or sensor, individual bright spots (effects of single photons) are recorded, but the overall intensity pattern for multiple photons is periodic (an interference pattern).
Kind regards,
Sascha Grusche
Jacques,
As I said previously, I don't recall any teaching about a magical transmutation being part of conventional QED. There are conflicting interpretations, but the predictions are robust and consistent.
As Sascha points out, there is considerable evidence that charge (and hence electrons) are quantized. Other examples that come to mind include the photoelectric effect, Millikan's experiments, and more recent work developing charge pumped current sources to redefine the SI ampere in terms of electron charge and the second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
http://notes.tyrocity.com/millikans-experiment-to-explain-einsteins-photoelectric-effect-and-to-determine-the-value-of-planks-constant/
http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1421
https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05965
http://www.npl.co.uk/science-technology/quantum-detection/research/quantum-current-standards/
@Alan Robinson. Sure, we all know that. But does quantization prove corpuscularization ?
See for instance the gammas used in the Pound and Rebka experiment, next in Pound and Snider's, with Mössbauer ray of 57Fe :
Wavelength : 86,10 pm.
width at mid-tower : 26 µm (for each photon)
Length : in the 3-10 meters range, minimum.
A 26 µm x 26 µm x 3 m corpuscle ?
You can perform the same investigation on the photons from the hydrogen maser. It is in the range of 210 000 km length. Corpuscle ?
@Sascha Grusche. Such experiments only prove that the absorbers are small, from one atom to a thousand atoms each, depending on the device and the physics of the detection.
It has never proved corpuscularization.
An Aharonov-Bohm type experiment proves that each interfering electron passes simultaneously under and above the micro-solenoid.
The Shariar experiment proved that the photons never ceased to be undulatory, never became corpuscular.
Jacques,
It would be helpful if you explained in more detail exactly what properties your corpuscle can and cannot have. So far we have
Returning to your original post, I do not accept your assertion that: "... experimental proofs contradict what is taught in every handbook, in every lecture room. What is taught is magical and mystic corpuscles, and calculations of the probability of apparition of magical corpuscle." (My emphasis).
This is not my experience, and I have already offered two counter-examples of books or lectures which appear not to invoke such mysticism.
What you claim is taught seems to be some undisclosed variation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Although widely promulgated, the Copenhagen interpretation is by no means universally accepted, and there are alternative inerpretations with varying levels of support.
John Polkinghorne's 2002 "Quantum Theory: a very short introduction" discusses some of these alternatives in a non-mathematical manner, and provides another counter example to your original assertion. And of course, there is Cramer's transactional interpretation, which you appear to favour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Acceptance_among_physicists
Everywhere you see interpretations of "which way", welchen Weg, or "delayed choice", they implicitly place themselves in a newtonian time, with some "before" and "after", a school-and-college-macroscopic-geometry, and with a neo-newtonian "particle".
In 1998 at IN2P3, Université Lyon 1, no one physicist knew I was anteriorized by twelve years by John Cramer. They all ignored him and his work. I came on it only in 2003, and by the webmaster of amasci.com, William Beaty. The censure is strong...
Other discoverers of TIQM are strongly ignored too.
A free neutron transmutes spontaneously into a proton+ an electron + a neutrino. Its lifetime (against this beta decay) is about 10 minutes. A few times (four decays out of about one millions) it becomes a Hydrogen atom + one neutrino.
Yves Pomeau
@Yves Pomeau. However, neutron radiocrystallography works. The Rauch and Bonse experiment succeded.
Neutron crystallography works because of the very long lifetime of the free neutron: neutrons are emitted, scattered and detected ways before they decay (typically a few seconds)
Yves Pomeau
And the Dirac-Schrödinger and the de Broglie's spatial periods of the neutron play their full roles.
Exactly, scattering of neutrons by condensed matter is used routinely to probe matter based on the wave-like structure of neutrons and also because, being neutral, neutrons penetrate deeper in matter than electrons (for instance) and are only weakly scattered.
@Yves Pomeau. You have used the presumption that "pinched once, pinched always !". Though no experimental proof exists. When in a nucleus, and pinched in the femtometer range, the neutron is stable.
After about 30 meters away of the nuclear reactor, the neutron is large enough to efficiently interfere in a crystal. And before some decimeters or meters before the final absorber-detector.
All that is conform to the Fermat-Fresnel principle.
And the weak decay into {a proton+ an electron + a neutrino} is also after some meters of Fermat-Fresnel expansion. They did not give details on the apparatus, as they thaught it does not matter.
@ Jacques Lavau I do not catch well what you mean by pinching, a word not used traditionnally in physics. Inside nuclei and in dense neutron stars neutrons are stabilized by their interaction with the other particles. This is because the energy of the final state, proton+electron+neutrino, all free particles is higher than the initial energy of their bound state inside the neutron. There is no mystery there, all this was understood long ago. When the neutron travels before it splits into proton+electron+neutrino, its wave function satisfies what you call Fermat-Huygens (more properly Fresnel-Huygens, no wave at all in Fermat). That neutron is composite does not matter at all, this is the same as for atoms which can interfere in Young like slit.
Yves Pomeau. Seuls les apex réactionnels pincent les fuseaux de Fermat de la propagation d'un quanton, jusqu'au diamètre de la réaction. Le reste du temps, la largeur de la propagation n'est régie que par les lois de la propagation ondulatoire, soit les équations de Maxwell si nous parlons d'un photon.
In english :
Only the terminal reactions, creation and annihilations, constraint the terminal diameters of the Fermat's spindle. When only propagating between the two apex, the actual diameter of the quanton depends only of the physical laws of propagation ; says the Maxwell equations if we speak about a photon.
@Yves Pomeau. What you call "wave function" has never existed in the real world. It is a fiction pecular to the Göttingen-København sect and its heirs, still three generations later. This fiction was initiated by Max Born, in order to save the mystic of "corpuscle". It uses the anti-relativistic postulate : the time becomes an universal and simultaneous parameter, like for the mystic god of Isaac Newton.
Please take some real world experimental facts, like the Ramsauer-Townsend effect (documented from 1921, and censured in every handbook of QM), the anti-reflect coatings, the quarter-wave plates for converting plane polarization into circular polarization, or the interferential colours exhibited by many birds, reptiles, fishes, so on, and their variations under large incidences.
All these experimental facts and many others give minorants to the diameters and length of photons, electrons, so on.
And now explain by which mystic and miraculous physics photons and electrons transmute into something corpuscular.
If never corpuscular ar all, why in the earth to devote so much efforts in denying their wave nature ? Why denying the wave mechanism of the Compton scattering ?
Why in the earth denyining so much the teachings of relativity ?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Particle Physics