Tunneling

Really? That sounds interesting. Do you have a pointer? I'm aware of his anti-photon paper - is it in the references, maybe?

It's good you are doing it, at least you are justifying your views. There's always a possibility that a simpler explanation exists, and anyway, thought experiments strengthen ones 'gut level' understanding of matters. It is often difficult to see through a jungle of equations.

Still, I feel unlikely that any 'common sense' explanation can shed light to such phenomena as the GHZ states - but I'd be delighted proven wrong.

Regards, Mikko

On a sunny day (Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:03:56 +0000) it happened John Devereux wrote in :

On my planet I do not HAVE to even discuss that crap. Let alone falsify it, it has been falsified already. One time is enough.

Right, that was probably Yamamoto's work. Its details are beyond me, I don't know lasers all that well, I just was interested in QND measurements at that time.

Anyway, the Tapster-Rarity-Satchell experiment is intriguiging. They seem to utilize the feature of high-efficiency LEDs that whenever an electron passes the junction, one photon is emitted. So, if you can force the electrons to arrive to the junction in a correlated manner, you would get out non-poissonian photon statistics. (This makes me wonder - shouldn't the the junction capacitance act as a charge reservoir which spoils the forced current? Well, I guess one must just require the capacitive reactance to be larger than the driver impedance at the average frequency of emission events).

My colleaques are doing something related, they are pumping single electrons to get metrologically accurate current. Their pump is driven by an external oscillator, and it gives out pretty ideal antibunched electron flow. That pump wouldn't be practical for driving a LED, but it is a demonstration of a current source with a very low Fano factor - so they do exist. (Well, there is always the metallic wire, of course...)

However T-R-S et al were simply driving the LED through a large resistor, and relied on Johnson current noise of the resistor being smaller than the junction shot noise. It is so simple that it approaches cheating! Sound like, if the LED indicator lamps in your favourite electronic gadget have high-enough efficiency, they're likely emitting squeezed light!

The Fano factor deviation T-R-S saw was very small, however. I'm wondering whether their effect is somehow related with the slight bunching which thermal light shows? The Johnson noise sort-of *is* blackbody radiation, after all.

Regards, Mikko

Transistors:

Multivibrator:

precursors:

Principle:

Invention:

Want a few TDs to play with? I have a bunch. There was a dusty bin full of them at Halted (or was it Hakltek?) , 10 cents each.

Rolf Landauer's approach was to show that the shot noise was reduced by a factor of the length of the resistor to the mean free path.

Sounds like an interesting one. Is it a single-electron transistor device?

That doesn't sound so very exciting, since it's the same thing as the diode laser, but using a crappier transducer.

Sort of. The spatial incoherence makes its phase space volume pretty large compared with a coherent state, no?

The bunching at h*nu

Those ones are down at the 100-ohm level, which is the tunnel junction equivalent of a dead short. (That was the sweet spot for rectification, though--calculated responsivity was nearly an amp per watt in some of those devices.)

With larger junctions and thicker barriers, it looks a lot more like normal tunnelling behaviour--flat in the middle, exponential takeoff at some bias level. You get that behaviour in the 100k-10G ohm range.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

It was a paper by Lamb and Scully (1968). Apparently it never made it into a refereed journal, but the fact that it has Lamb's name on it makes it worth reading. Copies float about on the web.

Regards, Jeroen Belleman

Thanks. The Easter weekend looks like it'll rainy here, so I'll likely have time to read it.

Jeroen Belleman

s/znrfamp2-el.htm

yne2.html

:

ple:

such

as

ed

ly

an

tion:

ten years

f them

Yeah sure.

George Herold Teachspin Inc.

I must owe the SED at least a keg of beer by now. (I assume you *don't* want me to send you a check for a few dollars.)

George H.

.highlandtechnology.com  jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

He's written a few columns for Physics Today too. I like this one,

A whole different perspective on probability. (at least for me)

George H.

Transistors:

Multivibrator:

precursors:

Principle:

Invention:

them

OK, I found them. They still work!

These are small ones, peak point current around 10 mA. The waveform is with a sine wave drive, 3v peak through about 250 ohms.

is

ky

Ah, well that sounds much better. 100k or a bit more would be nice. I'm always being bugged by a guy at NIST to do a tunnel junction noise experiment. He does this trick looking at the tunnel junction shot noise to calibrate the bandwidth and then measures the zero bias johnson noise to get the temperature. Is there some easy way for me to make junctions? How do I oxidize nickle?

George H.

t -

ith

tive

/els/znrfamp2-el.htm

illyne2.html

red

ors:

See

ogy

nciple:

such

ly as

s an

gated

ately

n By

ay

e can

lly

ters

s in

ars

of

l of them

ed text -

Sweet! Is there a part number on them? Ge, Si, or GaAs?

George H.

Transistors:

Multivibrator:

precursors:

Principle:

as

investigated

lately

can

Invention:

them

text -

These are almost certainly Ge. The marking on the case seems to be NE

Looks like

My senior EE project at Tulane was "The Tunnel Diode Slideback Sampling Oscilloscope" which won me a couple of minor awards that I didn't really want. I did all the work the night before the project was due.

I don't know what to make of you. Everything in science is observed indirectly. That doesn't make it any less real.

To think that light does *not* exist in quantum photons is a very ignorant way of looking at the world. Quantum packets are the only way to explain the photo-electric effect as observed over a hundred years ago. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Einstein who first explained it in another of his historic papers? Are you suggesting that he is wrong do I not understand what you are saying?

Even in middle school (well, maybe it was high school) I understood the concept that wave theory would not explain the fact that regardless of the intensity of light it would not separate electrons from the atoms unless the wavelength was sufficiently short. Short wavelengths have higher energy quanta and it is the energy of the individual quanta that can separate the electron from the atom.

I don't get your objections to the use of low intensity light. That is how they get the rate of photons low enough that they arrive less frequently and can be separately analyzed. According to wave theory a low intensity of light would result in *no* electrons being removed from the atoms.

Actually, this *is* the proof that light exists in quanta. How else do you explain the relation between the "threshold" of wavelength that relates to the work function of the material? This is not predicted by wave theory.

I usually used a weak O2 plasma, but probably heating it in air would work.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Google single photon source

Rick, I'm agnostic in terms of photons... a useful idea in my opinion. But when we detect photons it's always a case of light-matter interactcion. And most of the time it's light with electrons. So it's certainly possible to 'see' the quantization as being in the electrons or matter... The electrons 'live' in quantized orbits, and that leads to our 'seeing' only quantized photons.

George H.