Actually that had already been done by G. I. Taylor in 1909: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gold/pdfs/teaching/old_literature/Taylor1909.pdf

Quantum mechanics hasn't changed; experimental techniques have. While the average number of photons can be equal to 1, that number fluctuates and it is these fluctuations that describe the interference effects.

Such fluctuations, called ``photon shot noise'', have been observed: https://stanfordcomputeroptics.com/technology/dynamic-range/photon-noise.html

I am preparing an article on that, which will be quite different from the Copenhagen interpretation. Before I publish, you can read Aharonov et al., though my approach is very much different from their. Also, I published an Abstract in Committee on Space Research.

And there is nothing mystical in it.

Stam Nicolis, why didn’t they publish in a major journal about the photon shot noise?

Dear Julian Ting,

"What are the latest (theoretical) understanding of self-interference (in double-slit exp)? "

The double slit experiment was invented and first preformed by Tomas Young, an Englishman in 1801. The book written about him was titled" the last man who knew everything."

Young's belief was that his experiment was strong proof that light was a wave. His interpretation was somewhat controversial at the time since Newton had proposed that light was composed of corpuscles (particles). Young suggested that if light consisted of particles, that their composite still acted like a wave.

Following this experiment and its insight, most theorists began changing their minds agreeing that light was a wave. About a hundred years later in the early 1900's Einstein again proposed and provided evidence that light was a particle. But because of young and other experiments theorists decided that light was either a particle or a wave depending upon the observation and experiment.

Fast forward to the present, about a hundred years later again: The double slit experiment, and all of its variations and ramifications, can easily be understood from a similar but still different perspective. That light consists of both particles and waves at the same time, independent from observations. .Therefore light would consist of both particles (virtual photons) and waves of aether at the same time IMO. It consists of pressure waves in a background field, similar to the aether theories of yore. Most of EM radiation would be aether waves, where only a small portion of each wave would consist of photons or virtual photons.

If a wave is observed, it is interfered with physically since one must use electric or mechanical instrumentation to detect it. When doing this the pressure waves within it almost instantaneous (near the speed of light) disappear so all that remains is the aether flow toward the target, with only a few remaining pressure-waves. Obviously no interference patterns will be observed. Besides pressure waves, light could also consist of virtual photons which means short lived particles (photons), not necessarily anything permanent. Realize that at the speed of light, EM radiation can encircle the Earth 7 time in one second.

Photon entanglement is also very easy to understand IMO. As a wave, if you send light in opposite directions one side of the wave will be correlated with the results of the other side since they are both exactly the same wave. From this perspective photons would not necessarily be involved.

The interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and theory, as well as denial of a background field via Special Relativity, have made it impossible for most researchers and theorists to understand the double slit experiment and all related experiments. But if one realizes that light is a wave, then these experiments (and there are a great many of them) can be easily understood IMO. The peak energy of light's pressure waves we now call photons because of Einstein's interpretation.

There are a great many examples of proposed background fields. My preference is a physical Zero Point Field, but there are a great many other proposed fields like the Higgs Field, dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, quantum foam, etc etc. Maybe more than one of these could be the background field that I and almost countless others have proposed, such as Maxwell and Lorentz.

There is nothing mysterious at all about the double slit experiment and all other related experiments to it that I have read about. Special Relativity is simply wrong, period, and quantum theory also does not recognized the local hidden variables inherent in a omnipresent background field. Michelson- Morley could not detect such an aether if these fields are generally gravity centered, as they surely appear to be IMO.

Unfortunately, nearly all of modern physic's interpretations are either totally wrong or lack a great deal of misunderstandings IMO for many of the same reasons discussed above.

Cheers :)

Forrest Noble, aren’t you describing Bohm’s mechanics?

Natalia S Duxbury

No, Bohm never believed in an aether, which is the basis for all of my above explanations. He proposed a number of skeptical interpretations of quantum theory of his time, and his own hidden variable theory, many of these proposals were much closer to reality than the misguided beliefs in Quantum Theory in his time IMO.

But my explanations above are far simpler than anything Bohm wrote and explain the double slit experiment and can explain all other experiments in QM, IMO. These explanations are mine alone and can be understood by almost anyone, regardless of their education in physics. Many of my explanations, theoretical equations aside, involve two IMO very important principles in physics. One is Occam's Razor and the other is "barmaid physics." The book that I wrote proposes an alternative to nearly all of modern physics, which is totally unique and contains 357 pages. You can find it using any search engine. The name of it is the Pan Theory.

Forrest Noble, did you revive the Nicola Tesla’s concept of aether?

Thank you.

Dear Natalia. Duxbury, thanks for your reply and query.

No, not Tesla, although I've heard he makes a cool car :) To me, as explained in my online book the Pan Theory, the existence of an aether is necessary and IMO obvious (the ZPF, HIggs field etc). QM, for instance, is our best statistical system to predict events in the quantum world. But quantum theory, the many versions of it, are simply BS IMO. But with a background field and hidden variables, everything comes together based upon simple logic. Same thing with General Relativity. The equations generally work well in the macro world up to about 20 light years, beyond that it is unpredictable. The claim is that dark matter is involved otherwise the equations would work. Then we have the foundation concept of warped space. Instead consider density, pressure, and flow differences in an omnipresent background field and the logic of it fits with the equations. Again, warped and expanding space are a fantasy IMO.

My claims are that there is no dark matter, instead there is background field flow. There is no dark energy, instead the Hubble formula is wrong by about 10% at a redshift of Z = .6. The observable universe is not expanding, instead the source of the observed redshift is the extremely slow diminution of matter, 1/1000 part every 5 million years, therefore the universe would be countless times older. Inflation is just a ad hoc fantasy. Every hypothesis of the Big Bang model and theory is wrong IMO.

De Broglie waves are waves in the aether produced by spinning, non-symmetric particles we call fermions -- showing the same face to the observer every two spins. Particle spin is real, not just a characteristic. De Broglie waves in the background field are the basis for the wave interference pattern produced by electrons in the double slit experiment.

regards, Forrest Noble

Natalia S Duxbury

Forgot to mention Natalia, that although my primary interest and journal papers are in cosmology, I wrote a paper (yet unpublished) on how to mitigate or prevent tropical cyclones. I present 7 methods how to do so. If you are interested I could send you the paper via e-mail. I'm impressed by your capability profile :)

The low light intensity experiments do not necessarily reject wave models of light or the Copenhagen Interpretation. However, the Ashfar Experiment does (see Wikipedia for the experiment and the Copenhagen responses). The de Broglie double-solution (a causal interpretation of QM) does provide a viable approach. It fell short because it did not identify it nature of the "particle" generator. The later Bohm addition also did not have a source for the guiding wave. I think it likely de Broglie did have an ether in mind for a wave carrying medium rather than the usual probability interpretation of the wave (no medium required).

The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) is my own and not peer reviewed. It is radical. However, it does agree with experiment. It suggests a model of the photon and includes a wave carrying ether. So, the photon causes a wave in the ether(plenum) which is then the pilot wave (it directs the matter particle photon as general relativity suggests - matter causes waves in an ether and he waves directs the matter)

Article Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small...

The published experiment

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

rejects wave models of light. There are many other experiments that reject wave models of light. The computer toy simulation produces the results of the experiments sing the STOE.