Timeline for Does each photon have a unique wavelength?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2021 at 19:20 | vote | accept | Jiminion | ||
| Mar 9, 2015 at 17:36 | comment | added | Jim | @Floris Yes, I know. It was a simplified example meant to point out that saying there's no reason for two things to be the same doesn't mean those two things can't be the same. I realize the analogy isn't perfect, but no analogy is perfect. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 17:34 | comment | added | Floris | @JimdalftheGrey - in the case of snowflakes it could be argued there is a countable number of configurations (for crystals up to a certain size that might actually be "humanly countable). If a snowflake starts with 6 molecules, there have been many such snowflakes. As they get larger the design variations grow factorially, but for a finite N the number is always countable. Mathematically, the (uncountable) number of irrational numbers is much bigger than the countable number of snowflakes. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | Jim | @Floris this is certainly true, my point was that just because the probability of selecting one value out of an infinitely large set is infinitely small, that doesn't mean that the number has necessarily not been selected twice. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | Equality is always up to infinite precision. There's no reason that nature (or physics) should think in orders, though - perturbation theory is easier to manage than the full thing, but this does not mean that it is the better notion of a theory. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 17:04 | comment | added | Floris | @JimdalftheGrey - "sameness" with snowflakes would be met if N molecules were arranged in the same way. That is a very (VERY) large but finite set. Unless there is a fundamental quantization of wavelengths that I am unaware of, there are infintely many possible wavelengths - a bigger infinity, maybe? | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 17:02 | answer | added | Floris | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:49 | answer | added | QuantumEyedea | timeline score: -1 | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:45 | comment | added | Jiminion | @ACuriousMind, because if the values are continuous, that means they have to be equal to infinite precision. That's a pretty tall order. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:28 | comment | added | Jim | @Jiminion There are circumstances where only photons of a particular energy are produced. Since energy=frequency, it stands to reason in those instances that the photons would have equal wavelengths. But apart from those instances, this is like saying that no two snowflakes are the same. Maybe most are just slightly different from each other, but I live in Canada and I know just how many snowflakes there are. Just because it's possible for them to be different doesn't mean every single one is different. I'd bet my life that at least 2 snowflakes have been identical, same with photons | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:24 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | "In a continuous realm, how can anything be exactly the same?" Why would the relation of equality depend on the size of the set it is defined on? I don't understand the question. Things are equal when they are equal. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:23 | comment | added | Jiminion | @JimdalftheGrey Yes, if not conclusively, then at least it is something we should not assume otherwise. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:17 | comment | added | Jim | Just to be clear, you are asking if the fact that our measurements can't probe the wavelength to infinite precision and the fact that wavelength forms a continuous spectrum means conclusively that no two photons ever have the same wavelength? | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 16:04 | history | asked | Jiminion | CC BY-SA 3.0 |