Thinking about DSE I am wondering whether there is not a sort of influence from one slit to the other. At the time the photon is at the slits its further fate should be predetermined, because this is the only source of influence for it. Copenhagen interpretation (CI) regards the photon as a probability smeared in space but also can not avoid the notion that the photon interacts with the slit. The interference pattern clearly is different with one slit than with two. So the presence of second slit changes the fate of the photon. I am not sure if anyone has investigated the influence of one slit on the other.
So I propose to split the double slit in two so to prevent any influence from one slit to the other. In fact I propose to have instead of one double slit – two single slits apart at a distance of less than a half length. Maybe it is easiest to use a cm wave source. The space between the slits (in front of it) is blocked by some bar in order to avoid radiation to pass between them. Here is the plot.(DSE plot.doc)
I am not sure what QM predicts in the case. From side it must give the usual double slit interference pattern as the configuration is clearly DSE setup. The (probability) wave goes tru both slits and then interferes on the screen.
But from point view of interaction the photon interacts with one slit (not two) and there must be no interference. I think the experiment is worth doing if not already conducted somewhere. As far as I know I have not seen such kind of DSE. If someone has seen let me know.
Wrong from the beginning ! You think corpuscles. They have never existed.
Really? How do you explain the sole click of many detectors? How does energy of the quanta always concentrate instantaneously from a huge volume in one point?
Not "instantaneously". You deal with the fairy tale, not with the experimental results.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/15postulates.pdf
Can you shortly account for the photo effect on noncorpuscular (undulatory?) basis.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee_juin2017.pdf
pages 203-207/325, chapter 11.
I remember you that the invention of h by Max Planck, his quantum of action-by-cycle (or looping quantum) has never depended on any corpuscular hypothesis.
Do not hesitate to demonstrate that any experimental result in optics, photonic, electronic or neutronic, could be made compatible with the fairy tale of "corpuscular aspects". Please contemplate the silly hypotheses of Linus Pauling and Bright Wilson, for complete failure :
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee_juin2017.pdf
pages 116-118/325, sub-chapter 8.5.
In TIQM, we acknowledge that the absorbers exist. So we do not replace their physical properties by hasty slogans. We study their physical properties.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/Microphysique_contee_juin2017.pdf
@Jacques Lavau I am not going to read any books espesially in french.
Can you tell with one sentence (better one word) what happens to your wave in the DSE at the time it reaches the screen. Why is it not registered on the whole screen but only in a spot when there are single photons (low intensities)?
I recall you that any individual wave has one emitter and one absorber.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/15postulates.pdf
Quantum physics is made of individual waves. Some are fermions, and the others are bosons. That's all.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/15postulates.pdf
Article Fifteen surreptitious, copenhaguist and corpuscularist postu...
So the wave goes tru one slit? Why the second slit makes a difference then in comparison with one slit? And what is different of this wave from a particle?
If the wave goes tru both slits and then rearranges somehow to go to one slit this is not a wave and there is not a reason which can rule this.
Please reopen your handbook of optics. There are conditions for operating an interference experiment, and it is more difficult for electronic optics. However we obtained Laue diffractograms of small inclusions of carbide in a special steel, with the electrons of the big Siemens electronic microscope. The Laue pattern proved the cubic cell of the carbide.
Can you answer the question from point of view of transactional theory (or whatever you think it is) or you just playing silly school games? If you can not answer please don't write on my question anymore.
You simply have not practiced any interference experiment. If you had, you would not pretend that an interfering wave only knows one of the slits, and does not use the second one. Just in your hat, you pretend that waves have just the properties of the corpuscles. Completely absurd. Just artillery of corpuscles !
Your legend of "rearrangement" is absurd.
So on.
Ok, as I expected only blah blah - empty words and nothing more. Are you just training your writing skills? 'You have not read this, you have not practiced that' - absolute bullshit.
Why do you in fact pretend to explain something by not explaining anything?
Can you not understand when you are told - you are invited to give your explanation. Why do your write if you cant? Transactional 'theory' is a fake theory and no one cares about it. It is even more stupid than MWI.
You have not understood anything.
You are still believing in the power of macro-time.
Macro-time is only a statistical emergence, which flows in the same direction as entropy, and has no causal power in microphysics.
A beam of waves is still a collectivity of individual waves.
Bosons if photons, fermions if electrons or neutrons, bunching the firsts, antibunching the others.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books