Dear Dimitri Martila

Thanks for invitation . Can you kindly further explain "Holy Spirit" in term of physics & sciences.

Regards,

Dear Raja, I am giving you the links to the theological discussions of mine. Please look there for another of my posts, if you would become interested. But the name "Holy Spirit" is not the secret in Wikipedia.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Even-an-atheist-can-say-the-laws-came-from-above-isn-t-it

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Is-the-double-slit-experiment-the-mind-game-with-Holy-Spirit

Dear Dmitri, all the problems dissapear if we confine yourself to waves and their properties without talks about particles. These waves are the only reality so as proved Ehrenfest. Waves and their absorption in jumps which we cannot describe on the following reason. The best analytical description of bound states is Dirac's equation. The best our results we get with perturbation theory (QED) but not analytical theory. Higher we can talk about particles and spirit.

Dear Dmitri, there is the simplest answer: photon is nice word but not a particle.

May be. However were was the clever experiment: short EM-pulse from the source goes to beam-splitter, then one part goes to the detector, second part to the other detector. The fact is: in each shot of the EM-pulse only an one detector was registering.

My view is that the presence of the Screen with two openings (the double slit) S alters the space and vacuum long before one sends a particle towards it. Then the particle is guided by this altered vacuum to build an intereference pattern. Maybe this vacuum is your Holy Spirit.

My view is that photons, electrons, etc. are point-like particles. They propagate in space directed by the conservation laws. Where the conservation laws permit they are guided by fields so that particles are more likely to be found where the field is stronger.  There is a field for every type of elementary particle. These fields are intrinsic to space and they obey the appropriate wave equation.

arXiv:1412.1077

Dear readers, photon usage can explain everything, including everything which does not exist in reality, and so you can get almost any result that you like. Such situation is convinient for many of us. It is well known that wave descriptions is always real but they require real serious work. The reader can choose the way.

I assume you are trolling for hits - however, should you be serious: Your question is not well posed. One theoretical framework not agreeing with the predictions of another one whose axiomatic foundations are distinct in proof of nothing. I suggest that you think carefully about what science is and the sort of questions it can answer. While they are a dull read, Popper's musings on science may be of value to you (although his views of quantum are not particularly solid in places).

No. I occasionally try to better understand the double-slit experiment and its variants (Zeilingler's 1999 paper is a favourite), but I would avoid mind-games with the Holy Spirit. Never read Acts 5?

Not being an expert in particle physics, I just would like to call everybody's attention that QM is built on the wave-particle dualism, and if you deny particles as some contributors to this debate do, you deny the historically well established, and experimentally well detectable heart of QM. In fact, then you are back with Schrödinger's thinking, and turn your back on Bohr and Heisenberg, on Complementarity and Matrix Mechanics.

In fact, I should say, that on the contrary, the only detectable true Reality for us are particles, because our senses biologically are capable to conceive only well-localised events (particles), not delocalised ones as waves. Every real experiment, and so the double-slit experiment too, is based on the detection of particles, whose ''delocalised'' distribution is ruled by the superposed probabilities with reference to the next particle experiences of our senses.

Fully agree that particles are what we directly detect. We indirectly detect the presence of waves as when we see a rainbow.

According to my view there is also wave action in nature (besides macroscopic mechanical waves). Particles are sensitive to it provided that the conservation laws are met; that is why we see a rainbow.

We should recall that the all theory of quantum mechanics works with waves and coordinates of any point in space-time we name coordinates of particle introducing complication in our description. Jumps of transitions are created by deficiency of our description. The fact of the matter that the most precise theory, atomic quantun electrodynamics, is mere perturturbation theory which cannot describe detailes of transitions between different states.

Dear Dr. Marat: I don't see why people insist on the Schrödinger theory, which is only a convenient mathematical tool, not the real physical picture. In fact, its Schrödingerian  interpretation  describes only the wave side of the total problem of the wave-particle dualism, and if we claim only this side, we are well beside the point of QM. It is recognized by now that the wavefunction is a historical name and does not necessarily refer to the reality of a n y physical occurrence. On the other hand, the fact that QED or QCD is only a converging approximation, it does not mean that reality accomodates to our description. What concerns quantum jumps (state transitions), they are, in my opinion, an inherent property of all matter obeying QM, not due to lack of proper description. The particle side of the total QM picture cannot be evaded, because, as I have indicated above, we can but experience only particles in actual quantum measurements. Actually, as emphasised e.g. by Heisenberg, the particle side of QM referres to the measurement aspect of QM. That QM is a complete theory was demonstrated by every experimental fact, let's think of the Bell theory and its inherent problems.

Dear Andras, Schrodinger theory is mere approximation to atomic quantum electrodynamics which is the most precise theory developed by humankind. QED results represent base of the modern quantum optics with known technical advances. Do not confuse verbal interpretations with base of technical advances.