Observing single electron flow

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
yonder.co.uk>) about 'Observing single electron flow', on Wed, 14 Jul
2004:

No they shouldnt. This is sloopy prose that only leads to more
misunderstandings. Experiments put the radious of an electron at <
1e-18M.

This is simply the region in which the probability function exceeds some
threshold value.

The fact that the position of a localised electron may be uncertain
within a region, does *not* imply that an electron physically occupies a
volume of space.

Since one cannot tell where it is in that volume, I think it's quite
reasonable to say that it 'occupies' that volume.

All experiments show that they are indeed little tiny buggers.

Again, this is just the high-probability region.

 

[Roger Hamlett]

Oh, don't be such a grouch. You're only alive for something like 1e-12
of the expected age of the universe, so why not be happy while you're
here?

Of course you remove the electron. The question is whether leakage
from a capacitive node can be resolved to single-e steps. I think it's
a great question (not the less since I posed it myself here a while
back) that requires some decent math and device knowledge to approach.

I think I have a way to do it... later.

It is perhaps worth looking at some of the work/data on CCD detectors. The
transfer function of some of these, has a Qe (the probability of a photon
being converted to an electron), in the order of 90% (for the most
expensive 'back illuminated' devices), and then a E/ADU conversion set up
in the order of perhaps 1.2 to 1.6:1. The shot noise, thermal noise, and
quantisation noise, limit the ability to use the very bottom data, but
some such systems can return a detectable signal for only a couple of
photons. However it takes a lot of careful design to return a workable
signal much below perhaps a dozen electrons. The basic principles cover
exactly the problem you are considering.

Best Wishes

 

[Scott Stephens]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
yonder.co.uk>) about 'Observing single electron flow', on Wed, 14 Jul
2004:

I suspect it may be able to be localized with greater precision in the
future by using the phenomena of entanglement:

"However, this new research, still in its theoretical stage, could
provide a bypass of the Rayleigh criterion. The research team proposes
that entanglement would allow the use of existing sources of laser light
of 248 nanometers to produce computer chips with dimensions of a fourth
of the wavelength (62 nanometers) or smaller compared to today's limits
(124 nanometers).

Entanglement would allow researchers to use the intermingled properties
of two or more photons to obtain subwavelength spatial resolutions"

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/supercomputer-00d.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/chip-tech-03f.html

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

 

[Rich Grise]

You *could* put it that way...


Hey, my backside passes billions of neutrinos per second (or something
like that) and it's not *that* big. ISTR (from Heisenberg though it's
a long time ago now) that you can't observe a single electron without
interfering with it,

Well, this is a total non-problem, since "interfering with it" is kinda
the goal.

so how anyone can be sure they've isolated one
individual particle of this infinitesimal size is beyond me.

The way Millikan did it, as others have mentioned. Your output has
steps. You only get a flow of nx units, where n is an integer. Whatever
the interval, or step height is, is the value of one quantum.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward


This is simply the region in which the probability function exceeds
some threshold value.

Since one cannot tell where it is in that volume,

We can when we measure it, so we can determine that it is inded
localised. The "cloud" is a *virtual* region described by a probability
function. It dosnt physically exist. The electron is in that region with
a certain probability. Its that simple.

Secondly, the quantum wavelength of a particle can be much larger or
much smaller than the particles physical radius, clearly showing that
the quantum wavelength based "particle volume" has nothing whatsoever to
do with the physical size of the particle.

I think it's quite
reasonable to say that it 'occupies' that volume.

No its not. As I stated, this gives never ending grief in understanding
as to how physics currently views the world. Particles are *not* smeared
out in space. No experiment gives this view. It is much better to
dispense with this daft notion. Its wrong.

Again, this is just the high-probability region.

?

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
yonder.co.uk>) about 'Observing single electron flow', on Thu, 15 Jul
2004:

Particles are *not* smeared
out in space.

How does one electron go through both slits in a double-slit experiment?

 

[Paul Burridge]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
yonder.co.uk>) about 'Observing single electron flow', on Thu, 15 Jul
2004:

How does one electron go through both slits in a double-slit experiment?

Because we live in a *multiverse* rather than one universe. In some
other part of the multiverse, just a few angstroms away from us here,
you are the Queen of Sheba, Kev is a respected Nobel Prizewinner,
Fred Bloggs is engaging company and I have a good grasp of
electronics.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Because we live in a *multiverse* rather than one universe.

No. This is an essentially baseless conjecture, which is intrinsically
unobservable. It is an ad-hoc *interpretation* of QM that is not
necessary. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward


How does one electron go through both slits in a double-slit
experiment?

It don't, and doesn't need to. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html. Electrons behave
as billiard balls obeying non-Newtonian mechanics. It has been
conclusively experimentally demonstrated, by firing one electron/photon
at a time, that diffraction patterns are *single* localised impacts,
built up over time to give an *illusion* of dark and light wave
associated patterns. Unfortunately in the early 20's, when QM was being
formulated they were unable to do such experiments with the required
precision, resulting in the now discredited and erroneous, wave-particle
fiasco. There are no waves. Period.

No, and I mean no experiment has ever shown coincidence detection of two
particles. The simplest ad-hoc qualitative interpretation of particle
motion is that particles are subject to the randam quantum background
ZPE field that causes their motions to have a randam component, and
hence produce pattens not predicted classically.

The basic misunderstanding with QM, is that although the original
equations were correct when first formulated, the interpretation of them
was somewhat lacking. Unfortunatly, although the original
interpretations were wrong, they seem to have captured the limelight and
stick with us today. It makes scientist appear clever, its a case of,
its fashionable to believe in daft ideas. The reality is, is that QM is
not as strange as it is claimed. Nothing in QM *requires* any notion of
two paths at once, shrodingers cat, or multiple universes and other such
nonsense. The equations work, and *explicitly* deny any possibility of
being able to directly observe such non-classical states. The adage is
that, if in *principle* in it impossible to observer something, we might
as well ignore it. It tells us nothing new.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Tim Shoppa]

For a 1pf capacitor storing a single electron, V = e/C = 6.9 x 10(-7) V. So
with careful low noise design, I can't see it being impossible to design a
1pf capacitor and measuring the voltage to determine whether a single
electron is present. Is it worth investigating to see how far I can go?

In a photomultiplier, a single photon ejects a single electron that then
gets multiplied in the tube to a measurable pulse. (Or, it doesn't get
multiplied...). This is pretty easily observable and the result of just
a single electron. But it doesn't directly give you the electron charge,
if that's what you're after.

There are other common physics-lab experiments (like the one where
you measure the work function for different metals) that are closely
related to electron charge, but far from direct measurements (especially
if you don't believe in quantum mechanics.)

Are you trying to experimentally measure the electron charge w/o the
Millikan oil drop experiment?

Tim.

 

[Scott Stephens]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
yonder.co.uk>) about 'Observing single electron flow', on Thu, 15 Jul
2004:



How does one electron go through both slits in a double-slit experiment?

An analogous phenomena has been observed with "dark solitons". You need
to stop thinking of the vacuum as empty, and a particle as material:

www.digitalphilosophy.org
http://www.compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/tew.html

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

 

[Kevin Aylward]

An analogous phenomena has been observed with "dark solitons".

Oh?

It has never been observed for material particles (electrons) or
nonmaterial particles (photons) so why should it be observed in "dark
solutions". There are no waves. Period. There is nothing provably
continuous with which to make a wave medium. Even water waves achieve
their wave nature based on the *statistical* properties of billions of
water molecules. A "water wave" is only an *approximation* to a
fundermentally discrete process.

You
need to stop thinking of the vacuum as empty,
Agreed.

and a particle as
material:

Er...?

Electrons *are* material, essentially by definition.

www.digitalphilosophy.org
http://www.compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/tew.html

The "theory" in this last reference is already proven to be wrong
experimentally.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

No. This is an essentially baseless conjecture, which is intrinsically
unobservable. It is an ad-hoc *interpretation* of QM that is not
necessary. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html

There you go again: quoting your own fevered jottings in support of
your claims.
Most (ie, the *majority* of) theoretical physicists now accept that QM
*can* be extrapolated to account for Newtonian phenomena. The
corollary is that there are in fact, a vast number of multiple
universes with all the unsatisfactory consequences that carries with
it.
Better start again from scratch, Kev.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

There you go again: quoting your own fevered jottings in support of
your claims.

No, I reference experts in QM.

Most (ie, the *majority* of) theoretical physicists now accept that QM
*can* be extrapolated to account for Newtonian phenomena.

Oh.. Just what do you mean by this?

Of course QM accounts for Newtonian phenomena you &*^%. The limit of a
Quantum ensemble with h->0 is a Newtonian ensemble.

The
corollary is that there are in fact, a vast number of multiple
universes with all the unsatisfactory consequences that carries with
it.

No. For *one* *particular* waffle interpretation a multi-universe is
conjected. It is not a necessary conjecture. QM stands on its own
without such an ad-hoc add on.

Better start again from scratch, Kev.

You just don't seem to get it. Look, interpretations are just that,
interpretations. QM doesn't need them.

Now go way, you know *nothing* whatsoever about QM. Sure, I am no
expert, but at least I got a B in graduate QM. You haven't even got high
school classical mechanics under your belt.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

No, I reference experts in QM.


Oh.. Just what do you mean by this?

I'll see if I can dig up the reference. It was some major conference
of theoretical physicists a shortish while ago.

Now go way, you know *nothing* whatsoever about QM. Sure, I am no
expert, but at least I got a B in graduate QM. You haven't even got high
school classical mechanics under your belt.

C'mon, Kev. It's been *many* years since you got that B in Cellar
Management and I'll bet you *still* can't keep Guinness properly. ;->

 

[Ben Bradley]

For a 1pf capacitor storing a single electron, V = e/C = 6.9 x 10(-7) V. So
with careful low noise design, I can't see it being impossible to design a
1pf capacitor and measuring the voltage to determine whether a single
electron is present. Is it worth investigating to see how far I can go?

MRI used to detect lone electron
18:00 14 July 04
NewScientist.com news service

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996158

 

[Animesh Maurya]

Hasn't anyone thought of the infamous Millikan's Oil Drop
Experiment???

Infamous why? He got a Nobel prize for that.

 

[Rich Grise]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
yonder.co.uk>) about 'Observing single electron flow', on Thu, 15 Jul
2004:

How does one electron go through both slits in a double-slit experiment?

Probably the same way one machine gun bullet goes through a prison
bar. I've heard that even they diffract. That'd be something to see!

 

[Rich Grise]

C'mon, Kev. It's been *many* years since you got that B in Cellar
Management and I'll bet you *still* can't keep Guinness properly. ;->

According to one channel I've read, God finds it annoying when
people try to stuff him inside a human mind. It's reported that
He has said, quite recently, "you can no longer try to understand
Me by dissecting Me.", which presumably has something to do with
atom smashing.

The Stuff of stuff, Essence, is a continuous, nonquantizable fluid.
And It's conscious - It's Consciousness Itself, as a matter of Fact.

Original sin was trying to encapsulate It.

To achieve eternal life, all we have to do is learn to turn all
our fundamental particles back into their original energy, but
keep the form. And, of course, we need to reconstitute all our
own Essence that we've lost in our abortive attempts to create
like God.

After all, aren't particles just basically Light trapped in a
tiny Magnetic Confinement field of some sort? Or maybe protons
are actually tiny black holes.

We'll see!

 

[John Larkin]

According to one channel I've read, God finds it annoying when
people try to stuff him inside a human mind. It's reported that
He has said, quite recently, "you can no longer try to understand
Me by dissecting Me.", which presumably has something to do with
atom smashing.

Some important person said "If quantum mechanics doesn't frighten you,
you haven't studied it enough."

John