More thoughts on photons

If i were to set up a transmitter that was capable of transmitting a single
electromagnetic wave. And some distance from this transmitter I was to
setup a series of photon detectors in a circle about the transmitter. If I
move the circle of detectors far enough away it could come to an infinite
number of detectors. When I then transmit my single electromagnetic wave
how many photons will be dectected.

postman

The Postman wrote:
If i were to set up a transmitter that was capable of transmitting a single
electromagnetic wave. And some distance from this transmitter I was to
setup a series of photon detectors in a circle about the transmitter. If I
move the circle of detectors far enough away it could come to an infinite
number of detectors. When I then transmit my single electromagnetic wave
how many photons will be dectected.

postman

Define "single wave". It's like asking how loud a "single sound" is.

- Alex

Alexander Avtanski wrote:

The Postman wrote:
If i were to set up a transmitter that was capable of transmitting a
single electromagnetic wave. And some distance from this transmitter I
was to setup a series of photon detectors in a circle about the
transmitter. If I move the circle of detectors far enough away it could
come to an infinite number of detectors. When I then transmit my single
electromagnetic wave how many photons will be dectected.

postman

Define "single wave". It's like asking how loud a "single sound" is.

- Alex
Apologies for a badly worded question.
what I am really after is as the circumference of a wave expands to infinity
as it radiates in all directions into the cosmos how does this relate to
the number of photons being transmitted.

postman

The Postman wrote:

snip

what I am really after is as the circumference of a wave expands to infinity
as it radiates in all directions into the cosmos how does this relate to
the number of photons being transmitted.

By the inverse-square law, twice as far away means one-quarter the
flux of photons, _viz_ "intensity", in inverse proportion to the
surface area of the (spherical) wavefront. On the quantum level, if
there aren't enough photons emitted to go round, so to speak, this
proportion can be translated into terms of the probability that a
detector at a given distance will be struck.

--
Odysseus

Odysseus wrote:

The Postman wrote:

snip

what I am really after is as the circumference of a wave expands to
infinity as it radiates in all directions into the cosmos how does this
relate to the number of photons being transmitted.

By the inverse-square law, twice as far away means one-quarter the
flux of photons, _viz_ "intensity", in inverse proportion to the
surface area of the (spherical) wavefront. On the quantum level, if
there aren't enough photons emitted to go round, so to speak, this
proportion can be translated into terms of the probability that a
detector at a given distance will be struck.

Does that mean that at a large enough distance there is a chance that a
detector will not be struck by a photon even though a wave has passed
through it and does that mean that the circumference of the wave is not
continuous since we can only detect the wave by detecting photons.

postman

The Postman wrote:

Odysseus wrote:

Does that mean that at a large enough distance there is a chance that a
detector will not be struck by a photon even though a wave has passed
through it and does that mean that the circumference of the wave is not
continuous since we can only detect the wave by detecting photons.


AIUI, yes to the first part, but I don't think the latter part
necessarily follows: welcome to the wonderful world of wave/particle duality.

--
Odysseus