What evidence is there that light is a particle and not purely

The photoemission effect

>>8484542
This is the photoelectric effect. That doesn't prove light is a particle, it just proves electrons need a certain amount of energy to be released.

>>8484552
It does though, you can't explain it with a wave theory, the emission would take much much longer.

>>8484536
idk man photoelectric and compton maybe ? the fact that we can measure light one photon at a time ? why are asking retarded questions such as this anyways ?

>>8484559
Yes it can. Once an electron has received enough energy from the wave it will be released. If we assume that the distribution of the intensity of the light is not purely uniform (it never is in any real application) then the amount of time it takes an electron to be released will be effectively random depending on the amplitude of the wave at that specific point in space. Which is what has been observed.

>>8484586
To be honest it's been a while since I read it but there is an explicit calculation that shows that you can not have almost instantaneous emission with a wave. Sorry, can't post source since I don't have the book with me right now.

File: giphy (1).gif (2MB, 400x264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x264px

>>8484536
this

>>8484592
>almost instantaneous emission
>almost

Yes, if the wave is concentrated enough

>>8484597
That doesn't prove anything. That isn't a single photon, otherwise it couldn't physically have been imaged like that.

>>8484605
it proves that the photon bundle moves like a particle and not like a wave

>>8484569
>the fact that we can measure light one photon at a time

No, we can only measure one electron being released at a time.

>>8484597
how?
wtf?
why?
that's not a photon. i don't know if you're baiting or if you're being retarded on purpose

>>8484608
But it is moving like a wave. You can't see it here but Its diverging. That's what a wave does. Its impossible for light to travel without diverging.

>>8484598
A wave's energy is dependent on its intensity. The energy of the emitted electrons only depends on the frequency of the wave though.

>>8484621
It depends on both the frequency and the intensity. Lots of red light has more energy than a small amount of blue light.

>>8484626
Yes, but if the intensity played a role you could vary the energy of the electrons by varying the intensity of the field. This however does not happen. As long as you don't change the frequency, the energy of the electrons stays constant. This is consistent with the particle picture.

>>8484536
Because it has properties of both. This is a fundamental observation. Now stop shitposting.

>>8484634
Sorry I misread your reply.

If I have a plate sitting on my table, and I play a musical note at a single frequency and vary it, at a particular frequency the plate will resonate and start to vibrate. If I vibrate it at this frequency hard enough it will fall off the table. At this macroscopic level the sound can safely be treated as purely a wave.

I hope you can see the analogy.

>>8484659
Still doesn't work though. Resonance (i.e driven oscillation) still is dependent on the intensity of the input. Also the excitation time (the time required to get to a certain height or amplitude) is dependent on the intensity. These are both not observed in the photoelectric effect.

>>8484536
Idk do you consider wavelets photons

>>8484536
you can shoot photons 1 by 1 and they land at single positions.

>>8484676
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
First line
"In physics, resonance is a phenomenon in which a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency."

>Also the excitation time (the time required to get to a certain height or amplitude) is dependent on the intensity
Yes, more light means more electrons are released in a shorter time frame.

>>8484688
I don't get what you are trying to say with the wiki quote.

>Yes, more light means more electrons are released in a shorter time frame.
The peculiar thing about the PE is that the intensity has nothing to do with energy of the electrons, nor the time between stimulation and emission. It only goes into the number of electrons that are emitted.

In the wave-resonance picture you would get
a) an energy of the electrons (oscillators) that is dependent on the intensity of the incoming wave
b) a stimulation time of the electrons that is dependent on the intensity of the wave, since a low-intensity wave would take longer to excite the system than a high intensity one.

Neither of these are observed.

>>8484703
You said that resonance is dependant on the intensity. Yes, but it only happens at a
For the wiki post:
>specific preferential frequency

The energy of all the released electrons is of course equal to the intensity of the incoming wave. After the electron has received enough energy to be reliased, it no longer receives energy. Instead, other electrons are released. All this shows it that electrons requrie a certain amount of energy to be released, and need to be 'resonated' at the correct frequency. All of which can be described with purely wave like behaviour.

For the stimulation time I still don't understand your point. A low intensity wave does take longer to excite a system, less electrons are released per second. We just measure the intensity of the light in terms of the number of electrons that are released per second.

>>8484751
>You said that resonance is dependant on the intensity. Yes, but it only happens at a
>For the wiki post:
>>specific preferential frequency
This is not correct. Resonance happens at every frequency, but it's the strongest at a certain eigenfrequency.

>The energy of all the released electrons is of course equal to the intensity of the incoming wave.
No, only the number of electrons is proportional to the intensity. The energy is only dependent on the frequency of the incoming light. In a wave-like description the energy imparted on an oscillator is dependent on the intensity of the incoming stimulation, i.e a high amplitude wave would give the electrons more energy than a low amplitude one. This wold mean we could control the energy of the emitted electrons with the intensity, which we can't.

>For the stimulation time I still don't understand your point. A low intensity wave does take longer to excite a system
Yes, but that is not observed. You get instantaneous emission regardless of your intensity, whereas in the wave picture you need time to excite the oscillating electrons. And if you actually do the calculation you need way more time than what is being observed.

File: resonance.png (26KB, 702x506px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 702x506px

>>8484751
>>8484777
>Resonance happens at every frequency,
This might have been an awkward phrasing. What I meant was that the amplification by resonance is distributed around an eigenfrequency peak as shown in the pic, i.e. not bound to a single specific frequency.

>>8484597
Its literally a dude moving a flashlight behind the bottle lmaoo

>>8484777
>This is not correct. Resonance happens at every frequency, but it's the strongest at a certain eigenfrequency.

Similarly, emission can take place at any frequency, theres just orders of magnitude greater chance that it will happen at a certain frequency. If you blast enough light of the wrong frequency, eventually emission will happen.

If the electrons only require a certain amount of energy to be released, and will cease to absorb energy after this happens, then all the resultant electrons will have the same energy (or close enough)

>You get instantaneous emission regardless of your intensity

Yes, theres a small chance of it. Which can be explained by assuming that the intensity of the wave is always going to be random and non uniform.

File: chlorophyll.png (33KB, 570x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 570x400px

>>8484784
and simarly

>>8484794
>Similarly, emission can take place at any frequency, theres just orders of magnitude greater chance that it will happen at a certain frequency. If you blast enough light of the wrong frequency, eventually emission will happen.
No this is not correct. You most use light with energy E= h * frequency larger than the work function. You won't observe emission if you shine low-energy light at any frequency (not even at the suppsed eigenfrequency of electrons) at the material. This, again, is a point AGAINST the idea of light as a wave.

>Yes, theres a small chance of it. Which can be explained by assuming that the intensity of the wave is always going to be random and non uniform.
I don't know what you mean by that? Are you saying you DO observe delayed emission? Because that is not true.

>>8484801
I don't know what you mean by that.

>>8484586
>Once an electron has received enough energy from the wave it will be released.
Yeah that sounds reasonable but the thing is that it doesn't happen for light below a certain frequency. That's because for the low frequency light the photon's aren't energetic enough to excite the electrons.

>>8484830
>Photon's

Autocorrect

>>8484536
Do you mean before the photoelectric effect or some other reason than the photoelectric effect?


Two quick examples are radiometers and doing the double slit experiment with single photons.

>>8484843
Isn't double slit a demonstration of the wave property?

>>8484610
>that's not a photon. i don't know if you're baiting or if you're being retarded on purpose

Nah this is legit. Almost 5 years old. The only argument to be made is the difference between single photons and a bundle of photons. But, yes that is a single burst of light slowed down enough to where we can see it move..

>>8484612
>But it is moving like a wave.

Yeah hence the wave particle duality. If you are looking for evidence that light is and only acts like a wave then good luck, but this is definitely evidence of particle behavior. Otherwise it would have diverged significantly more, like a light bulb in a lamp shade.

>>8484851
You can't see light moving, the only way you ever detect a photon with your eyes or a camera is when it goes into the retina/CCD

>>8484846
Yes it is. There is no evidence of light being purely a wave or purely a particle. That is the struggle that is wave-particle duality. But the particles go in the double slit as single photons or bundles of photons and exit the same way. Yes there is an interference pattern, which mind boggling to say the least, but formed from huge amounts of individual photons, not all at once like is practiced in hs physics. Thus the photons act as both particles and waves.

>>8484872
>Yes it is. There is no evidence of light being purely a wave or purely a particle.
OP asked for experiments that confirm the particle aspect though. If you assume a wave, the double slit experiment isn't very surprising.

>>8484866
Nah senpai there are a fuck ton of ways to detect photons. Yes, that is the case for our naked eyes, but it isnt the only instrument/tool we use to measure light.

You are getting to the point though how it is odd that light diverges not from the source but rather from this packet moving through space, hence the general confusion related to wave particle duality.

>>8484872
The interference pattern happens even if it's only one photon at a time

>>8484876
>OP asked for experiments that confirm the particle aspect though


I know he did, but there is evidence of only both in tandem, not singularly one property or another. Any experiment that shows one or the other has been mathematically rigorously shown to have both properties. The best example of just particles would be radiometers. It is well accepted that it is both, not one or the other.

>>8484883
Right, that is my point. But sending a single photon through a double slit absolutely does not create an interference pattern. You need to send hundreds before it forms. If it were purely a wave then a single photon would instantly create the interference pattern, and it doesnt.

>>8484880
>Nah senpai there are a fuck ton of ways to detect photons.
Yeah but they're all just a measure of whether a photon has hit something. There's no way of "watching" the trajectory of a photon. To do that with anything you need to bounce light off it to see where it is but light doesn't interact with itself like that.

>>8484801
>>8484822

The image is an example of a typical absorption spectrum. There exist peaks where absorption is strongest, but there is still a range of frequencies over which absorption occurs. Even in terms of specifically the photoelectric effect, the frequency is not absolute.Even individual laser modes always have some amount of broadening.

At low intensities, there is a very small chance that we will see near spontaneous absorption because there is a very small change that the intensity will be concentrated enough to allow the electron to be released. At larger intensities, this is more likely to happen, and there is a higher chance that we will see near instantaneous absorption.

>>8484830
By that logic high frequency light should always excite electrons. That's not the case.

>>8484892
Photoelectric effect isn't very wavey at all

>>8484896
>There's no way of "watching"

It sounds like you are wed to the idea that the only evidence of something is what we can see with our naked eye. This is simply not true and incredibly limiting.

>>8484898
>That's not the case.
Pretty sure it is. If it wasn't the case that would be inconsistent even with your wave only model.

>>8484901
okay, and you have your evidence?

im lost as to what you're getting at..

>>8484904
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't measure where a photon is without destroying it so it makes no sense to say you can measure its trajectory because that involves measuring its location multiple times.

>>8484898
>The image is an example of a typical absorption spectrum. There exist peaks where absorption is strongest, but there is still a range of frequencies over which absorption occurs. Even in terms of specifically the photoelectric effect, the frequency is not absolute.Even individual laser modes always have some amount of broadening.

You're conflating absorption with the PE. These things are not the same.

>At low intensities, there is a very small chance that we will see near spontaneous absorption because there is a very small change that the intensity will be concentrated enough to allow the electron to be released

First of, we're talking about emission, not absorption. Second, you will see emission at any non-vanishing intensity if the frequency is high enough (again, points to particle picture). You will NOT find emission if your frequency is too low, and the energy of the photons smaller than the work function. And if you don't believe me you can do the experiments yourself, it's not very expensive.

>>8484857
Actually it diverges about as much as you would expect using wave based propagation theory.

I don't think you understand the amount of 'photons' that bundle would contain. So many, that its path can be absolutely described by wave propagation. The video is no evidence of anything.

>i literally spent all summer modelling light propagation

>>8484907
I'm saying the main properties of the photoelectric effect (instantaneous excitation and no excitation below certain frequencies) cannot be explained at all with waves so you can't say that every experiment shows behaviour of both particles and waves.

>>8484910
> I'm saying you can't measure where a photon is without destroying it

And/or changing it, yeah i agree.

But statistically we can create distributions as to where it is most likely to be. Hence you dont see a single pixel moving through the coke bottle, but rather a diverging light, hence the uncertainty.

Are you uncomfortable with making specific definitions from inherently statistical systems?

>>8484914
>I don't think you understand the amount of 'photons' that bundle would contain.

No one does, dont get all condescending for no reason mate.

>So many, that its path can be absolutely described by wave propagation.

Fantastic, we are back where we started with wave-particle duality.


Does it make sense that light which is entirely a wave conventionally makes more sense to diverge from it's source rather than where it exists in space at a particular moment?

>>8484917
When we describe electrons as waves, yeah it definitely can be explained by waves.

>>8484586
>Once an electron has received enough energy from the wave it will be released.

Except that's exactly what ISN'T observed. You can shine red light at a wall all day long and get zero photovoltaic effect, then flash it with a blue light and get a spike of emission. You can't explain this behaviour if light is a wave, only if it is quantised ie a particle.

>>8484918
I'm saying that that video isn't a video of a photon or photons or a light wave moving because you can't film light moving. Idk what it is but it isn't that.

>>8484924
>you can't film light moving.

What is it a video of?

Last i checked it was taken by a fairly reputable university program. We've been able to send and capture single photons for like 2-3 years now.

>>8484924
No offense to you because you are certainly well spoken. But i am more inclined to believe peer-research than an idk from some rando on the internet.

>>8484921
NO IT CAN'T JESUS

Instantaneous excitation doesn't make sense with waves because waves need time to get all the energy required in to excite the electron.

No excitation below a certain frequency makes no sense with waves because for a continuous stream of energy from a wave, if you wait long enough you will eventually put enough energy in and see an excitation. Another thing is that even if you make the low frequency light really fuckin intense you still don't get any electrons.

>>8484928
Why are we arguing the photoelectric effect is a given for OPs questions.

But more importantly instantaneous emission is not technically instantaneous, but rather on negligible time scales.

>>8484912
As I said, even for the case of PE .The light has to be absorbed be the material, and there is always at least some broadening in the frequency. Look at any real detector. Its impossible to build a detector that only absorbed light at one frequency.

Absorption of the light, emission of the electron.

> You will NOT find emission if your frequency is too low
Yes you will. The harmonics have a chance of triggering the photoelectric effect, again with a slightly broadened spectrum.

>>8484935
>The light has to be absorbed be the material
PE is scattering of photons with electrons. Absorption would imply the electron is taken into a higher energy state.

>Yes you will.
At this point I'm not willing to discuss this any further. Look at the experimental date. Do the experiment yourself. You will not find emission at low frequencies. You can shake your head as much as you want, it does not happen.

>>8484920
Waves travel across space as well as particles. Look at the ocean. Are we going to start calling groups of waves 'waveons'? Using wave prorogation theory you can model that perfectly. You don't need the particle description at all to explain what is happening.

>>8484935
>Its impossible to build a detector that only absorbed light at one frequency.

You have it backwards. It is impossible to build a source of light which is purely monochromatic due mostly to doppler broadening. It isnt a problem with the detector, but instead the source.

>>8484935
>> You will NOT find emission if your frequency is too low
>Yes you will
You can pretend that every PE experiment ever is wrong or you can just admit you're wrong.
If you want to perform the experiment yourself and contradict all prior evidence, go ahead and claim your Nobel prize while you're at it.

>>8484942
>You don't need the particle description at all to explain what is happening.

The main problem with only using the wave description is causality.

>>8484925
>>8484926
Looked it up, it actually sort of is, to be fair, but just calling it slow motion footage of a light pulse doesn't quite convey what it is. It's actually really clever what they've done, they deflect the light with an electric field somehow (not sure how that works) so I guess some of it comes off the pulse as if the pulse itself is emitting light as it moves.

That's p sick

>>8484934
Sure but those negligible time scales are still way shorter than the time required for a continuous wave to excite them.

>>8484941
>Absorption would imply the electron is taken into a higher energy state.
But that's exactly what happens. At a high enough state, the electron is able to overcome its bond to the atom and break free.

You can concede if you want, but there's plenty of evidence of the photoelectric effect occurring at frequencies below which the one defined by the work function. Look at non-linear optics.

>>8484950
And that video proves nothing about causality either way

>>8484957
>but there's plenty of evidence of the photoelectric effect occurring at frequencies below which the one defined by the work function. Look at non-linear optics.
No there is not. In optics you deal with light interacting with matter due to the matter's polarization. This is entirely different to the PE. You don't cause emission of electrons in optics.

>>8484961
Right, i was speaking more broadly, not about that specific video.

Yeah, totally, that video says jack shit about causality.

>>8484942
>Using wave prorogation theory you can model that perfectly
How about in the slit experiment where when you measure which slit the photon goes through the interference pattern completely disappears? I can't see how you explain any of that with waves.

>>8484968
>You don't cause emission of electrons in optics.

Yes you do. Optics is the study of the the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation is what causes emission.

> In optics you deal with light interacting with matter due to the matter's polarization
wut

>>8484968
>You don't cause emission of electrons in optics.
No offense, but i literally dont know what else you do in optics other than emission/absorption spectrums..

>>8484970
I don't understand your point. The two slit experiment is literally the proof that light is a wave.

>>8484957
>but there's plenty of evidence of the photoelectric effect occurring at frequencies below which the one defined by the work function
I would love to see said evidence.

>>8484536
>ITT
>OP asks everyone to give evidence that photons are particles
>OP asks everyone to ignore the strongest evidence that photons are particles

8/10 bait

>>8484985
>>8484989
Emission of _electrons_

>>8484990
Sure, HOWEVER, like I said, if you measure which slit the photon went through each time the interference pattern completely disappears and you're only left with two discrete piles of photodetections, that's about as far from wave-like behaviour as you get.

>>8484996
So just because you do research in nuclear physics the kinematic equations are useless?

Researchers dont live in that small of a bubble.

>>8484999
exactly, if light were purely a wave then single photons would produce the entire interference pattern, albeit dimmer, as opposed to striking in a single place.

>>8485006
I think I may be confusing you with someone else because I don't think we actually have a disagreement here.

>>8485003
I don't understand what you mean. In optics in general you don't deal with ionizing radiation (optical light is below the energies of the work functions of most materials).

But this is a giant digression. OP just keeps shaking their head without producing one piece of evidence for his argument. Especially for the delayed reaction at low frequencies, which imho is the most compelling argument for treating light as a particle in the PE.

>>8484985
>wut
Hey, you started throwing nonlinear optics around, you should know at least a tiny bit about it.

>>8485011
>In optics in general you don't deal with ionizing radiation
Optics is the study of all electromagnetic radiation.


>OP just keeps shaking their head without producing one piece of evidence for his argument.
I'm using the evidence that is already out there. I'm questioning what it tells us.

>Especially for the delayed reaction at low frequencies
I don't remember discussing this. What delayed reaction.

>>8485016
I know a lot about it. Enough to find that statement incredibly confusing.

>>8485019
>Optics is the study of all electromagnetic radiation.
Possible the wrongest statement of this whole thread.

>I'm using the evidence that is already out there. I'm questioning what it tells us.
Incidentally not bothering to post any of it here.

>I don't remember discussing this. What delayed reaction.
Probably because you haven't been reading my posts properly. If there were excitation at lower frequencies you could shine a low frequency light on matter and just wait until it drives the oscillating electrons into energies higher than the work function, then you'd detect emission. But you can do that all day and find no emission whatsoever.

>>8485027
>Incidentally not bothering to post any of it here.
What citations do you need?

>But you can do that all day and find no emission whatsoever. If the intensity is high enough you WILL find emission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wave_mixing

>>8485037
My reply wasn't supposed to be greentexted as well. I'm tired.

>>8485037
>What citations do you need?
Evidence for photoelectric emission at incident energies lower than the work function of the material. Evidence for delayed photoelectric effect.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wave_mixing
This has literally nothing to do with emission of electrons via the PE. It's an entirely optical process. I have difficulties to understand why someone who works at this level would have difficulties grasping the PE.

>>8485040
>Evidence for delayed photoelectric effect.
This is a straw man you seem to have created. I never said that.

>This has literally nothing to do with emission of electrons via the PE. It's an entirely optical process
It has everything to do with PE. How do we detect these optical anomalies? Using detectors, built on the principles of the PE. Everything we know about light come from observations made through the photoelectric effect.

>>8485046
>This is a straw man you seem to have created. I never said that.
This is implied when you treat light as a wave in the interaction.

>Using detectors, built on the principles of the PE
Yes, and those detectors use materials whose work functions lie below the energies of the optical spectrum.

>>8485053
Ok, I'll make it simple for you. Low frequency waves can combine to make high frequency waves. You can do things to increase the chance of this happening, but it always happens. Its dependant on intensity. So if you have a frequency below the work function but at a high intensity, you can still cause the emission of electrons through the photoelectric effect,

>>8485061
>Low frequency waves can combine to make high frequency waves.
I don't have the energy to check this now so I'd love a source, but I have never seen this (while keeping the periodicity of the wave of course, which is necessary for your argument of resonators). And even then, its seems like a highly specific setup that does not apply in general. And to keep up with your wave argument you'd still need to show delayed emission.

>>8485079
>>8485061
Also, you'd still have give evidence that this actually works.

>>8485079
The source is any book on non-linear optics.

I don't think the wave argument necessitates delayed emission, but I'm going to bed now. Maybe I'll come back and argue some more later. Interesting discussion.

File: cav.png (62KB, 631x424px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 631x424px

>>8485079
this

>>8484788
strange but true
http://video.mit.edu/watch/visualizing-video-at-the-speed-of-light-one-trillion-frames-per-second-9742/

You're going to run into problems with conservation of energy if the energy of electromagnetic waves isn't quantized. Which is all we really mean when we say "particles" of light exist.

>>8485468
To elaborate on this, let's start from >>8484921. It's true. Model the electron as a quantum mechanical wave, model the light as a classical wave, and you can correctly work out what happens to the electrons in the photoelectric effect. But then someone comes along and says, "Show me the energy conservation!" Well then we have a problem, because we haven't modeled the absorption of the light yet. To do that, we need to work out not just how the light acts on the electron, but how the electron acts on the electromagnetic field.

You could try keeping the electromagnetic field classical, but this is going to cause problems. Say you shine the light on the atom long enough that it has a 1% chance of emitting an electron. In a classical model of the light, only a small amount of its energy has been absorbed, much less than hf. But suppose someone makes a measurement, and you got lucky; the electron was emitted even though there was only a 1% chance for that to happen. The electron picked up a full hf of energy, which has to have come from the light. How did that happen?

The standard treatment would call for upgrading our model of the electromagnetic field to a quantum one. As you may know, the quantum theory treats every mode of the electromagnetic spectrum as a quantum harmonic oscillator, and deduces that the possible energies of the mode are (n+1/2)hf (n a non-negative integer). The ground state is called the vacuum, the first excited state "one photon", the next "two photons," and so on. It's a model that starts with waves and derives particles.

>>8484597
what am I looking at?

>>8486263
If we believe the people who put this video out, it's a burst of light being shot down a coke bottle. I assume it's full of some kind of reflective/refractive mist, which is why it has a glowy halo at every part of its trajectory, otherwise you wouldn't see anything.

What does the evidence say about stochastic electrodynamics (classical EM plus random zero-point fluctuations)?

Are the claimed observations of spontaneous parametric upconversion (infrared photons turning into visible ones) credible?

theory:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203042v1

experiment:
https://www.osapublishing.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-26-3-549
https://www.osapublishing.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-27-9-1751

>>8484536
>is there evidence that x is y and not purely z?

>you can't use the strongest evidence that x is y
(You)

>>8486343
Yeah, that's what it is. I had a lecture from the guy who headed this project. It's neat. He's doing imaging of caves on the moon using time of flight information from laser pulses now.

>>8484569
You did not understand the question

>>8485101
Jesus Christ is that from a TeachSpin manual?

>>8486461
Notably
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307094
doesn't see the predicted effect.

>>8484597
Kys

>>8486461
Can you provide a tl;dr for us brainlets?

>>8487932
Downconversion = high-frequency light turning into light of lower frequency (in terms of photons, the high-frequency photon produces two lower frequency ones).
Upconversion = low-frequency light turning into light of higher frequency. According to at least one author working on SED, SED says it should happen at a similar rate to downconversion.

>>8487943
How is this any different from the non-linear optics that was discussed earlier?

Even wave is reflected on reflective surfrace, like wave of sound particles, so the wave of "sound" with certain energy and certain pressure at bosonic field. Eather, you still get light wrong by not accepting the medium it's flowing in. Fucker like froud put it away because it was scary in 1900 and Tesla was fucked up when everybody believed fuckers even he started.

File: 1299827572338.jpg (130KB, 960x535px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 960x535px

>>8487977

>>8487976
If I'm understanding correctly, the SED guy is predicting an intensity out directly proportional to intensity in. This isn't like harmonic generation, where the two photons in means the double-frequency intensity goes as the square of the original intensity.

>>8487986
But the experiments he linked in his post are, as far as I can tell, classical NLO processes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion

>>8484536
Compton effect

>>8484597
Could be a wave packet nerd