We have the simple arrangement of the double slit, but with the addition of a precise clock. The screen is also substituted by a CCD camera, so one can check when there is an event (hitting of the photon on a camera pixel).
Now we concentrate on the first minimum (say left side). If we don’t watch the clock we must get the normal interference pattern. (e.g. no events in this segment of the camera). But if we watch the clock we should know where the particles come from (left or right slit) because the distance from the left slit is slightly closer to this minimum. So we get which way information and the interference pattern is destroyed – so we must get events (and even many such) in this segment.
There are some paradoxes appearing. Without any efforts I can figure out at least 3. Surely there are many more.
1. How watching the clock on a distant spot is changing the physics on the slit panel (there seems to be no connection between them)?
2. If we use a less precise clock we would get interference. How can it be that the precision of the instruments can influence the events?
3. We could place a CCD camera above the first and not use clock with it. So on the first CCD there is 0 events and on the second CCD some events. The physics (on the slits) must be the same but it is not?
In order not to water up the discussion I would be thankful if your comments are concerned on the first item. Also please try to analyze this from the view of the orthodox interpretation of QM (Copenhagen or some variant).
Dear Ilian, You wrote: "if we watch the clock we should know where the particles come from (left or right slit)".
Why do you think "left or right slit" instead of "left and right slit"?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thiery.
because every photon is separate (on its own) and interferes with itself. So one can count them one at a time. e.g. "left or right slit". If we dont have the clock QM says it goes both slits.
Dear Ilian, what makes you believe that "every photon is separate (on its own) and interferes with itself"?
Light are waves. Please read text books about waves in physics very carefully, such as running waves in rope, or a tsunami. You will then see that waves are not a matter of maths, but a matter of a physical process, which needs a medium before it can even exist.
Momentum and energy are transported fragments of the medium, and the speed of propagation is defined by the physical properties of that medium.
This is what the great Louis de Broglie wrote about it.
For electrons, he wrote:
“[...] the determination of the stable motions of the electrons in the atom involves whole numbers, and so far the only phenomena in which whole numbers were involved in physics were those of interference and of eigenvibrations. That suggested the idea to me that electrons themselves could not be represented as simple corpuscles either, but that a periodicity had also to be assigned to them too.”
And also:
“The conditions of quantum stability thus emerge as analogous to resonance phenomena and the appearance of integers becomes as natural here as in the theory of vibrating cords and plates.”
He reasons as follows: “I thus arrived at the following overall concept which guided my studies: for both matter and radiations, light in particular, it is necessary to introduce the corpuscle concept and the wave concept at the same time. In other words the existence of corpuscles accompanied by waves has to be assumed in all cases. However, since corpuscles and waves cannot be independent because, according to Bohr’s expression, they constitute two complementary forces of reality, it must be possible to establish a certain parallelism between the motion of a corpuscle and the propagation of the associated wave. The first objective to achieve had, therefore, to be to establish this correspondence.”
He discusses further, (with hidden critics): “All that I shall say [...] is that nowadays the tendency in general is to assume that it is not constantly possible to assign to the corpuscle a well-defined position in the wave.”
His own opinion is however: “I must restrict myself to the assertion that when an observation is carried out enabling the localization of the corpuscle, the observer is invariably induced to assign to the corpuscle a position in the interior of the wave and the probability of it being at a particular point M of the wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude, that is to say the intensity at M.
If we consider a cloud of corpuscles associated with the same wave, the intensity of the wave at each point is proportional to the cloud density at that point”.
Here, the idea is given that a particle could be considered as 'inside' the wave, and even more, the wave is consisting of a multitude of corpuscles.
This make me think about a running wave in a rope, or better, a tsunami, in which the wave is made of water molecules, but in which the wave only exists if the water surface isn't flat and calm, hence its rest mass is zero, and its propagation speed is determined by the properties of density and tension (= energy density).
So, we must see in a wave the absence of “the” particle, but see the transport of momentum and energy within the wave itself, in a confined space, and made evident by numerous corpuscles (or maybe waves?) of another type and scale.
For electrons, one must see this an a wave in a closed orbit, by a yet undisclosed effect, which makes such a thing possible.
It suggests that with the double slit experiment, electrons are literally cut by the slits into running waves instead of waves in a closed loop.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Thierry,
I consider a concrete situation whereas you don't comment nothing on it.
Also I wrote that i would like to explain it in terms of Copenhagen or some variant of it, whereas you offer de Broglie views.
The de Broglie view can explain nothing in the case (at least I can not see how a real material wave can be changed because i use a clock! far away from the slits - if you can = do it!). I can't also see how the probability (Copenhagen) can either.
Also as far as I understand you deny existance of photons?! All is waves???!! This brings us back to ý1900. There are many experiments with single photons!
Remark: The Maxwell waves dont need a medium. In any standard Electodynamics course E and M are selfinducing due to their variation (Maxwell eq.)
Best regards
With my colleagues we worked it out here: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1498
Dear Magdalena, thanks very much. As far as I understand after looking at your paper, you sugest that using a precision clock one changes from inertial frame to non-inertial frame, where it is expected to have diffent physics? Is that right?
Dear Magdalena,
How different is the gravitational equivalence principle from the principle of the conservation of energy, valid for any physics?
How different is relativistic "proper time" from Newtonian proper time in stationnary experiments by using light?
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Ilian, if you would not read textbooks as a source of mathematical information, but if you would look at the phenomenology that would possibly explain some mathematical results, you would get better results in understanding Nature....
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Ilian Perouhov. You have never performed the thought experiment you imagine.
You have supposed that a photon is a corpuscle, with null length, timeless emission and timeless absorption. So without any frequency nor any wavelength.
So without any interference...
Even when a delirium is taught everywhere as its sect became hegemonic for 1927, it remains delirious.
Jacques Lavau, of course I and nodody has done the experiment. Nevertheless it is almost feasible, because there are femtosecond clocks. But if not feasible today it clearly has two answers: A) the presence of such clock changes the way particles (or waves) behave on the slits. B) nothing changes - -> (I think that will be what will happen). Then the which way info principle is not working. Do you agree?
Do not neglige to describe accurately the properties of the sensor you rely on, that would drive your clock.
Do not neglige to tell the frequency of the radiation you intend to use
Interesting.. The principles of Causal Conspiracy can be applied to the situation.
Again, again, and again the same repetitive bullshit. You have no mean to transmute any photon or any electron into something corpuscular.
Around a nucleus, an electron remains a stationary wave. When transferred from an emitter to an absorber, it remains a progressive wave.
But the reality is far too simple to be considered by the Göttingen-Københaven tribe and their heirs.
There are some paradoxes appearing.
1. How watching the clock on a distant spot is changing the physics on the slit panel (there seems to be no connection between them)? There is a causal relation between any point distant from the slit and the slit.. The relation is what happens here-now is affected by what happened there-then, some point a distance away, a period of time in the past.Stop thinking that the distant spot is not in the past of the events, it is.
Recall: the Lorentz transform applied to a photon shows that all its travel from the emitter to the absorber is at a null proper time. Though neither the emission, nor the absorption, nor the wave are of null duration; a hundred thousands of periods are not uncommon.
Recall: According to the Dirac's wave equation of the electron (1928), two of its four components are retrochronous.
Sure, the highest academic authorities behave in front of the Zitterbewegung like hens who have found a fork.
Recall, the transactional definition of a photon:
2.2.4 Every photon (= individual electromagnetic wave) has an absorber.
A photon is a successful transaction between three partners: an emitter, an absorber, and space or optical devices between them. This transaction transfers by electromagnetic means, a quantum of looping h, and an energy-momentum whose value depends on the respective frames of the emitter and the absorber.
In the handbook, page 55.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/transactional-quantum-microphysics-principles-and-applications/paperback/product-23845893.html
Michael Mark Anthony, your conspiracy theory is very concise. You say there is something (wave) in some (maybe huge) area of space, which desapears in all points when captured (measured) at 1 sole point? This is more than miracle!
The same holds for Mr. Lavau.
Also you insist that any object sends "something" and prepares the slits to act like double slit before the photon was send? There is such a theory of Mr.Little called Theory of Elementary Waves or so. You can find physical analisis of it on web. They exclude this way of thinking.
Ilian Peruhov. Do not hesitate to exhibit the experiments that comfort your corpuscularist views.
When you find one.
Moreover, you accept the Newtonian macro-time as valid in microphysics.
One of the 17 surreptitious and clandestine postulates that we do not more accept.
I nod not think of time as Newtonian, It is a singular quantum sheet of the collapsed past that is generated at each moment of observation. Thus one can have an electron with spin up in which this past sheet that comprises here-now to all the there-thens to the Big Bang agree with that result, and in another instant, it can be pin down with the same agreement. The sheet is collapsed as a causal structure that agrees with the observation all the way to the Big Bang. In a sense the Big bang is recreated at every observation, not a bifurcation as in Many worlds. The fact is the entire spacetime basic we observe is a past sheet we cannot interact with, it is a static set of image spaces that is generated collapse after collapse.. It is a quantum spacetime.
So, with the Newtonian macro-time (as imagined in the Göttingen-København tribe and their heirs), when an atom emitted a photon, it must wait up to more than fourteen milliards of years to know in what direction is its recoil.
Years in what sense? A photon exchange between two states defines the causal relation, and there may be nothing but that, no space no time other than a relational information exchange between two states in a discrete universe. A static quantum result has no notion of time. It is simply a mathematical fabric that is defined by here-now there-then. Does 1mile/0sec wait to give infinity? Read Feynman. Perhaps if we integrate over all the possible paths including a path through infinity, we get a classical renormalized result for your atom. Each moment, we lift an entire fabric of spacetime from here-now to there-then that defines all events that are observable. That means the photon you measure here-now from there fourteen milliards of light years ago, was there then fourteen milliards years ago....
You must have four states for a photon :
And you must have the admittance of the vacuum and/or the optical devices in-between. As they are bosons, this admittance depends on the density of the population with compatible frequency and phases.
A photon is an individual wave, and not a corpuscle for artillery.
Is it really anything other than a relational aspect of causality between an emitter and an absorber?
A photon gives us a break in the perfect mirror symmetry of what we call spacetime. Imagine a mirror with a rotating ball removed a distance X from a mirror. The information of the ball is transmitted as some form of a wave (we call it that) and the image is generated. Now imagine that the image and ball are in perfect synch. Then there is no causality. causality arises when the symmetry is broken and the image lag the ball further and further as X increases. In PPCT, the photon generates this break in symmetry. In PCCT theory, the electric charge is a monopole and the magnetic charge is a dipole, but the electric charge is a spatial charge whose conjugate has been moved to infinity.. One is a maximized state, the other (magnetic monopoles) are a minimized symmetry. Similarly time is a minimized dipole of future-past, and space is now a monopole that is classical space.
As explained above, the Dirac's equation of the electron is bidirectional in time. So the Dirac-de-Broglie ground noise is bidirectional in all its micro-times.
The properties of the statistical emergence, the local macro-time, are valid in macrophysics, at the statistical scale on crowds, but have no validity at the individual scale of the microphysics.
I have already explained why your "magnetic monopoles" can not exist.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_novel_model_emerging-unified_magnetic_theory_of_monopole_ferrolenses_measurements_experimental_observations_and_modified_Maxwell_equations_theory
But my theory does not allow them to be monopoles, in as much as space, electric charge are monople fields and time, magnetic charges are dipole fields. I think you are just pulling my tail if I have one... good try.
The 17th postulate practiced by the winning pack of the Solvay coup in 1927 is the arrogant Superiority-of-the-pack postulate:
We are the modern forever. The vile objectors and non-believers are just dimwitted, brain-damaged, and retired colonels of cavalry, who try to return to classical physics.
And after me, there will be no more prophets, as the new physics is complete!
All the sects and most of the packs sell prostheses of narcissism to their adherents
So, as an adherent, I.P. dispensed himself from studying optics, coherent and incoherent optics. He has forgotten that for interference through a device like the double slit, each photon must be several hundred wavelengths and periods long, and a hundred of thousands of periods is typical. When an emitter is not adamant on the frequency to emit (so are the Bremsstrahlung and the synchrotron radiation), the absorber may be spectral and monochromatizing for both. It is practiced daily at the ESRF and in any neutronic radiocrystallography. But we have NO antispectral absorbers, no way to impose the shortening of a photon at the arrival.
Even three or four generations later, the ideations in the Göttingen-København pack remain delirious.
@ Ilian Peruhov. Are you sure that Mr. Little's " Theory of Elementary Waves " has anything to do with my accomplishments?
As for myself, I do not see any.
Your understanding also has nothing to do with what is written.
You are a great man. Only you understand you. I don’t know what you’re saying. I must be in doubt of what I don’t know. So let’s keep it that way.
If I presume that Michael Mark Anthony directs his sarcasms at me, I am sure he never read what is already free, but often obsolete, on Researchgate.
Article Fifteen surreptitious, copenhaguist and corpuscularist postu...
for instance.
Obsolete: now 17 surreptitious postulates are listed.
Sorry Jacques didn’t mean it that way. I just feel that if you are to really critic a theory you must know it. I do not believe in Newtonian time. I believe that A quantum collapsed state generates an instant space time where relations here- now are affected by states there- then. Thus a positron there- then has spin that influences the electron here/ now with spin down in collapsed momentary observation. So no relativistic or quantum puzzles. In my theory the definition of a metric spacetime depends on the information bosons you use. Thus the internal spacefiled the strong force for example is influenced by the exchange of quarks. What we call time and space are just bosonic relations that depend on which bosons we use. Caution read first it takes a clear understanding of what I call annihilator and creator fields.
But what do you do if "collapses" have never existed, are only some lies that are told to the children?
We see definite changes in slit experiments and wave behavior that points to what is generally called a collapse. To me a collapse of the wave function is a Möbius transformation from a quantum multipolar field to a monopole field.
Michael Mark Anthony I do not understand your "mobius" nor your "skit". Maybe typos?
You pretend a change of nature of the wave in its journey from the emitter to the absorber. But you will never prove it. It is a mere mythology.
I think of the information states as a mapping that is static from here-now to there-then. Thus there are no real momenta involved since the momenta as psuedo-momenta of mixed time labels. No actual time is involved, just a definition of causality. So, a static manifold that is instantaneously manifest as an Euclidean quantum result upon each moment of observation relates the states as mixed labels until and as one approaches a moment, the mixed labels take on the same time labels and become real. Since it is a limit, the Plank scale defines the limits of causality and thus also defines the moment gap. There may be no wave at all. It is a relational space of pseudo events that obeys causality. I refer you to my second book on the Principles of Causal Conspiracy the relevant attached).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation