Talk:Quantum 1/f noise

merge discussion

Should this be merged with 1/f noise? It doesn't explain its own relevance very well. — Omegatron 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, unless someone can make this less of an advert for the main author of the topic. Boud (talk)

This is a very sorry confession, but I'm probably the world's leading expert on 1/f noise. OK, stupid way to waste a lifetime. Anyway "Quantum 1/f noise" is 100% pure bullshit. It really should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. And no, I don't usually express opinions with that degree of forcefulness and certainty. (User: Mbweissman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbweissman (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I know little about the whole Wiki process, but if somebody wants to contact other experts to see what they think about deleting this entry, possible names include John Clarke (Berkeley), Bob Buhrman (MIT, I think), Bob Westervelt (Harvard), Nick Giordano (Purdue), Sue Coppersmith (Wisconsin), Sid Nagel (Chicago), Dan Fleetwood (Vanderbilt, I think), Dragana Popovic (National Magnet Lab, Florida), Nate Israeloff (Northeastern), Jim Kakalios (Minnesota). More can be supplied if needed. Seriously, this stuff ain't science.

The basic reasons that this "theory"cannot be correct are: 1. It treats the wave function of an electron which has some amplitude for having had a weakly inelastic scattering event as a coherent superposition of the scattered and unscattered components, with the noise coming from their interference. Of course, those components are actually entangled with different versions of the scatterer and therefore exist as an incoherent interference-free mixture (density matrix).

2. In almost every reported case, the characteristic noise times extend to much longer than the dwell time of the carrier in the device. That rules out not only the Handel idea but any other idea that treats the noise as coming from independent properties of individual mobile carriers.

One could go on, but it shouldn't be necessary.

--Mbweissman (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This really looks like the expression of a personal conflict...

Could pros or cons please give references of international journals articles verifying or not the theory by comparison with experiments?

Is there any other ab-initio theory of 1/f noise out there to explain the results of A. van der Ziel et al. which are supposed to confirm the "quantum theory of 1/f noise"?

Concerning objection 1. above, could Handel's approach be a reasonable approximation of the more elaborate density matrix approach? Handel's ideas have been applied to many different kinds of systems. Could it be possible that they are reasonable approximations for some of these applications and not others? Concerning objection 2. above, it seems to me that there is also later developments of Handel's theory dealing with coherent quantum 1/f noise as opposed to conventional quantum 1/f noise. Is your remark also valid for this "coherent" part of the theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.249.135 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

An incorrect theory that misuses the rules of quantum physics stays wrong independently from experiments.

165.91.12.152 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

if only wikipedia were concerned with facts more than sources.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a PhD student working on 1/f noise in solid-state materials. By no means am I an expert, but just wanted to say that Prof. Weissman (who wrote the comment above) is indeed an expert in the field. However, even if the quantum theory of 1/f noise, as published by Prof. Handel of UMSL is 'wrong', all what we need to do is to keep the page, describe the theory as is already done, and then mention the objections to it. I suggest mentioning the following excerpt:

   "Some of the theories that try to find a fundamental explanation of the Hooge formula are well enough known
   to make it worthwhile to look at some of their particulars, despite the general argument against such theories
   as an explanation for 1/f noise. The theory of Handel (1980) and the related theory of Ngai (1980) both explain
   I/f noise as arising from quantum beats between elastically scattered and weakly inelastically scattered carriers,
   with different inelastic scattering mechanisms used by the two theories. In order to obtain the low-frequency beats,
   however, monochromatic incident quantum waves are assumed — a completely unrealistic assumption in view of
   the fact that thermal frequencies are almost always 6— 15 orders of magnitude greater than the frequencies in the
   observed I/f range. Severe problems also arise for the theory when one remembers that the wave packet is localized
   within the sample, so that the beats, if any, integrate to zero."

This is taken directly from Prof. Weissman's article which has been cited ~ 1300 times. So the bottom line: let's just mention the theory and the objections.2620:CC:8000:C85:95EA:F81:280F:4579 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

References

contact of presumably the main author, shifted from article to here

Shifted from article: The answers are available to all interested in this historical aspect, from handel -at- umsl -dot- edu. Boud (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub

I've just put a stub-template to the page. Clearly, the page doesn't have any useful content. For a reader, all the mentioned information could be moved to a section about 'Quantum 1/f noise history' (although I'm not sure that section is needed at all as it seems rather a defence from those supporting the idea of Quantum 1/f noise), but most important, somebody should describe what this theory is actually about. Another paragraph might be helpful where people could point out the main reasons to support and/or reject the theory. AdamSiska (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead dances all around a definition without ever giving one. Robert K S (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantum 1/f noise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.umsl.edu/~handel.
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080331132833/http://staff.science.uva.nl:80/~nieuwenh/ to http://staff.science.uva.nl/~nieuwenh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)