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.
> -----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
> 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"
> 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.