Hi,
Regarding NEP; it's a quite popular "figure of merit" among us optical and infrared detector engineers. See for instance, R.H.Kingston, Detection of Optical and Infrared Radiation. I have a couple dozen other books with various approaches to the derivation; it's straight-forward. L.W. Sterritt [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: "noisy digitizer" interpretation of QM > > > hi all. > > the dialogue here on everything-list is extremely interesting & I know > several subscribers/participants from long ago acquaintances. > > I was tipped off on this list by "scerir", who posts regularly > on qm2 & whom I have a lot of admiration for!! > he has some really outstanding credentials > but will rarely ever mention them!! the address again > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qm2/ > > I am not so into the philosophical side of QM, and as soon > as wigners friend is mentioned I know I am ready to leave, but > let me write a little here for this great audience. by the > way, how many subscribers are on this list?? > > I wrote a paper, quant-ph/9808008, that reveals my directions > from 4 years ago. > > let me summarize my current directions as follows since it > impinges on the current dialogue, which Ive hammered out after > about a half decade. > > we have a purely **classical model** version of the double slit experiment > for both photons & electrons in the new theory, the "noisy digitizer" > interpretation of QM, which stands in contradiction to some of > the aspects of the copenhagen interpretation. > > noisy digitizer > --- > > the atom is seen as a digitizer of incoming light wavefronts. > each wavefront causes the atom to "click" or "not to click" > (that is the question!!) a click is an energy transition. > therefore, collapse of the wavefunction is the same as the way > the LSB of a digitizer is in fact a strange combination of > noise and signal. > > the interpretation holds that the click is precisely determined > by the internal state of the atom, but that state is "so far" > unmeasurable, although I believe there are experiments that > reveal this connection but are not being interpreted correctly > yet. (bunching and antibunching concepts in the literature). the > atom has a "dead" time after a click such that it cannot click > within a minimum window. possibly based on a formula relating > to planks constant or heisenberg uncertainty eqn. > > I would be pleased to answer any questions on the "noisy digitizer" > interpretation. > > the collapse of the wavefunction is in fact a mathematical abstraction > that is only an approximation of what happens in reality. I will > expand on this if others like, it would help if some people are familiar > with the quantum formalism. > > digitizers are now ubiquitous in the cyberspace age & I think > a nice new metaphor for quantum mechanics and its future. > > Ive found a formula called "noise equivalent power" that gives > a dark count/efficiency tradeoff for all photon detection apparatuses. > it involves the plank constant. its actually a false positive/negative > formula that shows an inherent physical tradeoff. I believe bell > formula derivations are not properly taking it into account. I believe > there may be a derivation that says there can be no violation of > nonlocality based on taking into account the NEP of the detector. > > therefore apparently QM is in fact an approximation of reality where > NEP=0, i.e. a detector with no noise. all detectors have noise, NEP>0, > and I believe right now this noise is enough to invalidate the existing > theoretical/mathematical derivations of the bell inequality. > > interesting, eh? right now would really like to correspond to > someone who understands NEP of detectors. maybe even the original > derivation. apparently its very obscure. > this is my latest writeup on the subject. > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1e0fd315.0209032055.48273d70%40postin > g.google.com >
