Do you think that the recent paper of Aharonov et al. resolved the problem of the long-standings particle-wave duality in Quantum Physics?
Are you aware of more recent works?
"Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment"
Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Fabrizio Colombo, Tomer Landsberger, Irene Sabadini, Daniele C. Struppa, and Jeff Tollaksen PNAS June 20, 2017 114 (25) 6480-6485; first published May 31, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704649114
No, since there isn't any such problem, in the first place. What they're after is a description of the non-local (wave-like) and stochastic properties of quantum mechanics, in terms of a deterministic model-that's, also, non-local, however.
As long as the new formulation gives the same results as the usual ones, of course, it's just a matter of taste, which one is used.
Sorry, here is not link to article of Aharonov. Therefore I cannot analyse his paper. My view on particle-wave duality is as follows: Quantum mechanics try to attribute wavy properties to everything. In reality there are particles of two sorts, i.e., bosons and fermions. Bosons (photons) are wave packets and so they has wave and lump both properties. Fermions are only lumps. More in:
Article About wave-particle duality
DR.Nicolis: "We put forth a time-symmetric interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not stem from the wave properties of the particle. Rather, it posits corpuscular properties...." Citing from their article. Thus they admit that particle-wave duality exists, and they choose to interpret the double slit experiment in a certain way. It is not a unique interpretation.
Of course there isn't a unique ``interpretation'' of any experiment and it's astonishing, how many people seem to think that the double slit experiment describes quantum mechanics in some sort of way, that other experiments don't.
The interference pattern is the only thing that matters for the double slit experiment. Any method that produces the pattern is as good as any other and any method that doesn't is useless.
So it's hard to understand just what this paper changes, with respect to what's, already, well known about quantum mechanics. It's possible to describe quantum phenomena in the Heisenberg picture--where particles are dealt with, in the Schrödinger picture, where waves are dealt with, or in the path integral picture, where the probabilities are directly computed, without any need for talking about individual particles or waves or interference effects at all, in fact.
The confusion about the double slit experiment is that it refers to spacetime properties, whereas the Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures refer to phase space properties-to obtain spacetime properties requires more work. It's the path integral that describes the spacetime properties of quantum objects most directly.
Dr. Nicolis, it seems that you prefer the path integrals of Richard Feynman
(I worked at Caltech later). Then you probably know that Prof. Feynman considered
the double slit experiment to be at the heart of quantum physics. And the experiment is still not explained completely!
Natalia S Duxbury
Stam Nicolis
The STOE model is similar in that it suggest light is photons and has a nonlocal medium (much faster than the speed of light) wave that is generated by the photon's movement and the reflections direct the photon. There are two missing parts to the Aharonov suggestion. One is the structure of the photon which is needed to determine the characteristics. The other is some experiments that the Aharonov explains AND that reject wave models. Both of these are overcome with the STOE model. Stam, note there are several experiments in the link that generate interference patterns but reject wave explanations.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-photon-diffraction-and-interference
Stam Nicolis
False. The structure defines what the nonlocal media does and hence the exact spacing of the interference pattern. Even traditional wave models show the spacing is dependent on the energy/wavelength of the light.
There's nothing in the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics, that's not, already, found in the two-slit experiment using a source of classical waves. The spacing between the peaks is proportional to k(a+b) in both cases, where a is the width of each slit and b the distance between the centers of the slits. The only difference is that the wavevector is proportional to Planck's constant, when quantum effects become relevant. It doesn't matter how the expression is obtained, the expression matters. Any way that produces this expression is as good as any other.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics