Quantum 1/f Noise

Started by Joseph Gwinn March 10, 2018
In the mid 1970s, there was a flurry about Quantum 1/f Noise, where physicist 
Peter Handel claimed to have found the quantum-mechanical underpinnings to 
1/f noise generation in general, and Aldert van der Ziel (The Dean of the 
Flicker Noise community) backed Handel up, saying that Handel's theory fit 
all of Van der Ziel’s 1/f measurement data.

The Physics community said that Handel’s theory was incorect, and that the 
fit to data must be a coincidence, but nobody evey came up with a better 
theory, or explained the coincidence.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise>

.<http://www.umsl.edu/~handelp/>

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldert_van_der_Ziel>

On this newsgroup are a number of people with electronics background and 
interests, plus knowledge of QM, and I&rsquo;m wondering if anybody has anything 
to offer on Handel&rsquo;s theory and Van Der Ziel&rsquo;s data.

My suspicion, given Van der Ziel's support, is that Handel is right, but for 
the wrong reasons.

Joe Gwinn

>"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message >news:0001HW.205442D200D312B370000BB3F2CF@news.giganews.com...
>In the mid 1970s, there was a flurry about Quantum 1/f Noise, where >physicist >Peter Handel claimed to have found the quantum-mechanical underpinnings to >1/f noise generation in general, and Aldert van der Ziel (The Dean of the >Flicker Noise community) backed Handel up, saying that Handel's theory fit >all of Van der Ziel&rsquo;s 1/f measurement data.
>The Physics community said that Handel&rsquo;s theory was incorect, and that the >fit to data must be a coincidence, but nobody evey came up with a better >theory, or explained the coincidence.
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise>
>.<http://www.umsl.edu/~handelp/>
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldert_van_der_Ziel>
>>On this newsgroup are a number of people with electronics background and >interests, plus knowledge of QM, and I&rsquo;m wondering if anybody has anything >to offer on Handel&rsquo;s theory and Van Der Ziel&rsquo;s data.
>My suspicion, given Van der Ziel's support, is that Handel is right, but >for >the wrong reasons.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of Handel was to produce a theory, i.e a "reason". If the reason is wrong, he is wrong. Dah... Yeah. Its pretty obvious, the guy was wrong. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
On Mar 11, 2018, Kevin Aylward wrote
(in article<iu-dnf6YsoFYbznHnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> > "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message > > news:0001HW.205442D200D312B370000BB3F2CF@news.giganews.com... > > > In the mid 1970s, there was a flurry about Quantum 1/f Noise, where > > physicist > > Peter Handel claimed to have found the quantum-mechanical underpinnings to > > 1/f noise generation in general, and Aldert van der Ziel (The Dean of the > > Flicker Noise community) backed Handel up, saying that Handel's theory fit > > all of Van der Ziel&rsquo;s 1/f measurement data. > > > The Physics community said that Handel&rsquo;s theory was incorect, and that
the
> > fit to data must be a coincidence, but nobody evey came up with a better > > theory, or explained the coincidence.
> > .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise> > > > .<http://www.umsl.edu/~handelp/> > > .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldert_van_der_Ziel> > > > > On this newsgroup are a number of people with electronics background and > > interests, plus knowledge of QM, and I&rsquo;m wondering if anybody has
anything
> > to offer on Handel&rsquo;s theory and Van Der Ziel&rsquo;s data. > > > My suspicion, given Van der Ziel's support, is that Handel is right, but > > for > > the wrong reasons. > > What? > > That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of Handel was to produce a theory, > i.e a "reason". If the reason is wrong, he is wrong. Dah... > > Yeah. Its pretty obvious, the guy was wrong.
Kevin, read more slowly. There is a loose end, the fact that Handel&rsquo;s theory fit the data, despite not being correctly derived. It struck me that people just dismissed this as mere coincidence, but proposed no alternative - that seems a bit cavalier. The history of Physics has many examples of fertile "coincidence&rdquo;. There does seem to be a small but steady stream of articles following the thread over the last 30 years, but I cannot say that the matter is settled in any sense. Joe
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:06:15 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
<joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mar 11, 2018, Kevin Aylward wrote >(in article<iu-dnf6YsoFYbznHnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>): > >> > "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message >> > news:0001HW.205442D200D312B370000BB3F2CF@news.giganews.com... >> >> > In the mid 1970s, there was a flurry about Quantum 1/f Noise, where >> > physicist >> > Peter Handel claimed to have found the quantum-mechanical underpinnings to >> > 1/f noise generation in general, and Aldert van der Ziel (The Dean of the >> > Flicker Noise community) backed Handel up, saying that Handel's theory fit >> > all of Van der Ziel&#2013266066;s 1/f measurement data. >> >> > The Physics community said that Handel&#2013266066;s theory was incorect, and
that the
>> > fit to data must be a coincidence, but nobody evey came up with a better >> > theory, or explained the coincidence. > >> > .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise> >> >> > .<http://www.umsl.edu/~handelp/> >> >> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldert_van_der_Ziel> >> >> > > On this newsgroup are a number of people with electronics background and >> > interests, plus knowledge of QM, and I&#2013266066;m wondering if anybody has
anything
>> > to offer on Handel&#2013266066;s theory and Van Der Ziel&#2013266066;s data. >> >> > My suspicion, given Van der Ziel's support, is that Handel is right, but >> > for >> > the wrong reasons. >> >> What? >> >> That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of Handel was to produce a theory, >> i.e a "reason". If the reason is wrong, he is wrong. Dah... >> >> Yeah. Its pretty obvious, the guy was wrong. > >Kevin, read more slowly. There is a loose end, the fact that Handel&#2013266066;s >theory fit the data, despite not being correctly derived. It struck me that >people just dismissed this as mere coincidence, but proposed no alternative - >that seems a bit cavalier. The history of Physics has many examples of >fertile "coincidence&#2013266068;. > >There does seem to be a small but steady stream of articles following the >thread over the last 30 years, but I cannot say that the matter is settled in >any sense. > >Joe
A couple of online papers show that 1/f noise in resistors declines at higher temperatures, the opposite of Johnson noise. Some sort of macro-scale coherences? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:44:11 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> In the mid 1970s, there was a flurry about Quantum 1/f Noise, where physicist > Peter Handel claimed to have found the quantum-mechanical underpinnings to > 1/f noise generation in general, and Aldert van der Ziel (The Dean of the > Flicker Noise community) backed Handel up, saying that Handel's theory fit > all of Van der Ziel&rsquo;s 1/f measurement data. > > The Physics community said that Handel&rsquo;s theory was incorect, and that the > fit to data must be a coincidence, but nobody evey came up with a better > theory, or explained the coincidence. > > .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise> > > .<http://www.umsl.edu/~handelp/>
Hmm those didn't help me much. I don't recall reading about 1/f noise in Van-der -Ziel, though I was more interested in other stuff, so most likely skipped those sections. 1/f noise is interesting, but it seems like there are lots of causes. George H.
> > .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldert_van_der_Ziel> > > On this newsgroup are a number of people with electronics background and > interests, plus knowledge of QM, and I&rsquo;m wondering if anybody has anything > to offer on Handel&rsquo;s theory and Van Der Ziel&rsquo;s data. > > My suspicion, given Van der Ziel's support, is that Handel is right, but for > the wrong reasons. > > Joe Gwinn
>"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message >news:0001HW.20558B7701201A5870000BB3F2CF@news.giganews.com...
> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldert_van_der_Ziel> > > > > On this newsgroup are a number of people with electronics background > > > and > >> interests, plus knowledge of QM, and I&rsquo;m wondering if anybody has > >> anything > >> to offer on Handel&rsquo;s theory and Van Der Ziel&rsquo;s data. > > > >My suspicion, given Van der Ziel's support, is that Handel is right, > > >but > > for > >> the wrong reasons. > >> What? > > >That makes no sense whatsoever. The point of Handel was to produce a > >theory, > i.e a "reason". If the reason is wrong, he is wrong. Dah... >> >> Yeah. Its pretty obvious, the guy was wrong.
>Kevin, read more slowly. There is a loose end, the fact that Handel&rsquo;s >theory fit the data, despite not being correctly derived.
Simply not relevant. If the assumptions used to derive the results are wrong, the "theory" is wrong. Period. There are millions of ways to derive the same result.It means nothing. Check out the nonsense some use to "derive" the fine structure constant. Its all twaddle. and no, its not a coincidence, its someone pissing about with formulas until he happens to find one, that matches up. There are many ways to do so. Its nonsense. End of story. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
"Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:mNKdnZGLZN9M7jjHnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Simply not relevant. If the assumptions used to derive the results are > wrong, the "theory" is wrong. Period. >
Huh, guess we should revoke Bohr's Nobel prize then...
> There are millions of ways to derive the same result.It means nothing. > Check out the nonsense some use to "derive" the fine structure constant. > Its all twaddle.
(Obvious troll being: he found a classical result, which happened to coincide with the empirical data. He _made no claim_ that it was anywhere near justified, and, fruitful research discovered and proved the underlying theory that gave rise to the result, and many others. These steps happen to be lacking in the present example.) Tim -- Seven Transistor Labs, LLC Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/
On Mar 11, 2018, Tim Williams wrote
(in article <p847fd$hv1$1@dont-email.me>):

> "Kevin Aylward"<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote in message > news:mNKdnZGLZN9M7jjHnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com... > > Simply not relevant. If the assumptions used to derive the results are > > wrong, the "theory" is wrong. Period.
> Huh, guess we should revoke Bohr's Nobel prize then... > > > There are millions of ways to derive the same result.It means nothing. > > Check out the nonsense some use to "derive" the fine structure constant. > > Its all twaddle. > > (Obvious troll being: he found a classical result, which happened to > coincide with the empirical data. He _made no claim_ that it was anywhere > near justified, and, fruitful research discovered and proved the underlying > theory that gave rise to the result, and many others. These steps happen to > be lacking in the present example.)
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model> Yes. Thanks for the example and the parallel. To be pedantic, Bohr&rsquo;s approach was semi-classical: He showed that for all stable orbits of electrons about a Hydrogen nucleus, an integer number of de Broglie wave periods of the electron fit exactly into the classical orbits of that electron around the nucleus. (Classical theory allowed all orbits, not just the few that were observed.) Transitions between these stable orbits yielded the observed emission spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. How curious.... The classical orbit part turned out to be nonsense, but this result was a pretty big clue on the way to Quantum Mechanics. Joe Gwinn
"Joseph Gwinn"  wrote in message 
news:0001HW.205611CE013F973E70000BB3F2CF@news.giganews.com...


>To be pedantic, Bohr&rsquo;s approach was semi-classical: He showed that for all >stable orbits of electrons about a Hydrogen nucleus, an integer number of >de >Broglie wave periods of the electron fit exactly into the classical orbits >of >that electron around the nucleus. (Classical theory allowed all orbits, not >just the few that were observed.) Transitions between these stable orbits >yielded the observed emission spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. How >curious.... >The classical orbit part turned out to be nonsense, but this result was a >pretty big clue on the way to Quantum Mechanics.
Sure, but it don't make the Bohr model any less wrong. It was basically, luck. The Bohr model forms a strait jacket to how things really work. One only has to look at all the interpretations of QM to see how most simply haven't cottoned on to the reality that QM has no classical understanding. Period. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
On Mar 12, 2018, Kevin Aylward wrote
(in article<a9OdnYZDQ7TncjvHnZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com>):

> "Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message > > news:0001HW.205611CE013F973E70000BB3F2CF@news.giganews.com... > > > To be pedantic, Bohr&rsquo;s approach was semi-classical: He showed that for
all
> > stable orbits of electrons about a Hydrogen nucleus, an integer number of > > de > > Broglie wave periods of the electron fit exactly into the classical orbits > > of > > that electron around the nucleus. (Classical theory allowed all orbits, not > > just the few that were observed.) Transitions between these stable orbits > > yielded the observed emission spectrum of the Hydrogen atom. How > > curious.... > > The classical orbit part turned out to be nonsense, but this result was a > > pretty big clue on the way to Quantum Mechanics. > > Sure, but it don't make the Bohr model any less wrong. It was basically, > luck. The Bohr model forms a strait jacket to how things really work. One > only has to look at all the interpretations of QM to see how most simply > haven't cottoned on to the reality that QM has no classical understanding. > Period.
Coming at it with 20/20 hindsight. When Bohr made his proposal, QM did not exist, and what Bohr was doing was to invent a small piece of it. And the fact that this semiclassical approach worked at all this was a big clue. I seriously doubt that Bohr thought that he had found The Answer; he did what he could. Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg) and Wave Mechanics (Schr&ouml;dinger) came later. I&rsquo;ve read some of the history of that period, and they knew very well that they were groping in the dark, and were always looking for fruitful analogies and the like. As we now know, it did eventually work quite well. Not that anybody understands it, to this day. I&rsquo;ve been digging a bit, and Peter Handel is still grinding away, forty years on, and his tagline is simply that his theory is the simplest theory that can explain a vast bulk of experimental data, where &ldquo;explain&rdquo; really means that allthose measurements fit into a single simple theoretical framework. I&rsquo;m sure if anybody had found a better QM derivation of his result, we would have heard of it by now, so I&rsquo;ll stipulate that this has not happened. I doubt anyone is looking all that hard these days, but eventually someone will get lucky. There are receent articles. Joe Gwinn