1. The clock the way you consider it is not a quantum-mechanical system, so coherence of a clock doesn’t make sense, also the clock in this experiment is not a superposition of states, actually “superposition” with regard to the clock in this experiment doesn’t make sense either

2. Observation is a measurement, it doesn’t have to be done by a human

3. in the Shcroedinger’s experiment the Geiger counter is the measurements, so it collapses the superpositionof the particle, not the human observer, thought experiments are tricky

The situation described isn't a counterexample-it's an example.

If the clock is in an eigenstate of the evolution operator, then it remains in that state and its phase varies linearly in time. Nothing prohibits this from occurring.

What the Schrödinger equation also describes is what happens to linear superpositions of states, since it's a linear equation for the wavefunction, that's all.

And what can be shown to happen is that, in a particular limit--the classical limit--the states that are the most probable are not linear superpositions, but the solutions of the classical equations of motion-as occurs for the clock.

Absurdities that you desribe are the outcome of great contradictions that are in the present physics. It doesn't regard only QM, but also the other predominant theories of present physics: SR, GR, SM. In particular in QM the evident contradictions are generated by the Indeterminacy Principle that is based on an inappropriate Mathematical model. That principle removes from the nature and from physics the Principle of Causality for which the physical reality is indeterminate and only the act of observation and measurement is able to generate the true reality. It is manifest that this approach, that would seem to give great importance to the process of observation and measurement, is in actuality the negation of the scientific experimental method in which the reality is independent of that act. Who has knowledge on measurements knows they can perturb the measured real value but it falls into a measurement error and into an inappropriateness of measurement instuments. It isn't the consequence of an intrinsic indetermination that is present in the nature according to QM.

The quantum behavior of objects existed before the "homo sapiens" appeared on the Earth. Photon emission is a quantum effect of de-excitation, and we get photons from distant gallaxies, i.e. emitted an enormous time ago.

In short, there is no connection between human observation and quantum superposition.

By the way, the quantum mechanics says clearly that a quantum superposition in unstable states lasts, statistically, in inverse proportion with the width of the Breit-Wigner distribution. That also has nothing to do with human presence, as argumented above.

As to Schrodinger's cat, take in consideration the limitation of this example. The cat cannot be in a quantum superposition because it is an open system. Be the cat living or dead, it exchanges particles (photons, etc.) with the environment. So, besides being a macroscopic object, i.e. unfit for quantum treatment, the cat can't be in a coherent quantum superposition, maximum one can try a description by a mixture of states.

Dear Airat,

1. every system is of course QM - no matter how it is described

2. what or who is able to observe in your opinion (can a double slit observe?)

3. absolutely can not agree that Geiger Muller counter can collapse anything when not observed by anyone

The mistake that many do, including Msr Sofia D. W. is to think quantum physics is necessarily indeterministic and probabilistic. I agree that the quantum behaviour is present in nature but I criticize the interpretation and the Mathematical model that "homo sapiens" of the mainstream thought, luckily not all, uses. The first mistake is the Indeterminacy Principle that introduces in physics and in the nature a completely useless concept regarding the simultaneous indetermination of two quantities of microphysical systems, while it would be completely possible to measure the single quantity with absolute precision. The second mistake is the unification of quantum mechanics with wave mechanics. In fact quantum processes are non-linear for definition while wave mechanics is linear. Consequently the superposition would be right in wave mechanics, but unluckily this is based on the dualism wave-corpuscle that postulates just an equivalence between a linear process (wave) and a non-linear process (corpuscle). I don't understand because the brain of the "present homo sapiens" doesn't see these contradictions.

Stam,

The Schoedinger cat is a paradox showing that QM does not have a mechanism to collapse the WF. I don’t know how a linear equation (Schroedinger’s one) giving a new superposition with every interaction can lead to classical behavior in the classical limit just by taking h to 0. Do you mean than the measurement problem is completely solved by taking h to 0?

I never knew that all interpretations of QM are beaten away by considering classical limit? If you mean another non-linear form of Sch.eq. , that’s of course another story – please let me know

The clock I consider (closed in the room) shows that the Wave Function collapses in contradiction to the QM’s Schoedinger equation. So yes – you are right (it is like the cat example and not a counter example) this is an example showing that there is collapse before observation and the cat must also be in a classical state with or without observation. In this sense there must survive only one interpretation of QM, that of Ghirardi -Rhimini –Weber.

The many world interpretation (which says that superposition splits in two (etc) worlds as soon as it appears) would say that we branch in a new world with every tick of the clock, but I wonder how we are always in a subUniverse where the clock shows the right time (there are branches where it shows 2.01; 2.01, ...., 3.59).

Copenhagen says that measurement only collapses the WF seems not able to explain the clock example and why it is showing 4.00 instead of 2.01 only.

Decoherence is excuded by simply using vacuum.

Schrödinger was openly sarcastic when he wrote this mocking apolog.

Sure, "Superposition of state" is a central dogma in the Göttingen-København mythology, but nothing such exists in the real world.

Sure, "wave function" too, dispersing everywhere, is a central dogma in the Göttingen-København mythology, but nothing such exists in the real world.

Sure, these Knabenphysiker believed in the fundamental reality of the Newtonian macro-time of the laboratory, but the laws of microphysics do not bother with the Newtonian macro-time of the laboratory. Mere statistical emergence, it has not any causal power in microphysics.

So, these Göttingen-København Knabenphysiker pretend to assign a "wave function" to a cat. Well,

Exercise : Your mission, if you accept it, is to compose a "wave function" for a cat.

Supposing the cat weighs 3.5 kg, calculate his/her Broglian frequency.

Supposing you move the cat at 1 mm/s, calculate its de Broglie wavelength.

Now compare your figures to the movement of his/her ribs when breathing, the moves of the vibrisses (whiskers), the heart beat, the accelerations of the bowels...

:-D

Dear Jacques,

I agree with you that a cat isn't a wave function but it is something of more complex. I go beyond, I say also an electron isn't a wave function.

Daniele Sasso. Please develop you idea!

Jacques, my idea has been developed in Article Basic Principles of Deterministic Quantum Physics

In this paper I have criticized the Indeterminacy Principle and demonstrated this principle is based on an inappropriate Mathematical model. In actuality Heisenberg maked use at first of that model for photon and after he expanded it to mass particles, like electron, as per the dualism wave-corpuscle. and the equivalent wavelength. This dualism was after also the basis for establishing an equivalence between Quantum Mechanics and Wave Mechanics. The criticism to that inappropriate Mathematical model brings into question the validity of fundamentals of QM and it allows to follows a new way, just the Deterministic Quantum Physics.

Cat --> Clock --> electron

@Jacques Lavau

“Schrödinger was openly sarcastic when he wrote this mocking apolog.”

Yes, surely. But the problem is that it is not fully convincing and QM Copenhagen interpretation (CI) is that cat turns alive/dead not before you open the box. This view can not be disproved as is not today.

So your post stimulated me to offer a much simpler and more convincing analog that the cat and than the clock I offered in the initial question. It goes like this: All is the same as in Schroedinger cat but instead of the cat we have device releasing an electron rather than poisoning the cat. The electron moves in the box without interaction. Observing (opening the box) means the the experimentor shines with a light source and then analyzes the received signal to find where is the electron (approximately). If the observation is what turns the superposition of the electron (it is in superposition of being releases and not) in a defined state as CI insists, then it must always be very near the releasing device. But if not (it is found thoughout the chamber) than this view CI must be regarded as false.

Please comment this scheme (anybody else is also invited Dr.Sasso as well). Is it convincing against CI of QM? Of course experiment must be done and may show CI is right.

The biologists have struggled for centuries to conquer the right to escape to the animism, represented mainly by the Roman church in Vatican (plus some local variants). Now for ninety years, the Göttingen-Københavnists have reintroduced their animism in the fundamental Physics: "If I do, etc., then the observer, etc.". We big animals have nothing to do in the middle of the laws of microphysics. The laws of macrophysics and microphysics must be impersonal.

No one electron moves in a box without interactions, more than a few femtoseconds. And even this last predicate is doubtful. Maybe the only correct statement is: "No one electron moves in a box without interactions. Period." I remind you that under the wave equation of the electron, Dirac 1928, the electron has two retrochronous components (and of course two orthochronous components). It is enough to ruin the surreptitious postulate that an electron could dwell in our Newtonian macro-time. So exactly as a photon, no flying electron may be without an absorber at the end of the fly. No matter of "If I do, etc., then the observer, etc.". Anyway, it has an absorber. That is what the laws of microphysics are on.

Sure, the laws of diplomacy are quite different.

Jacques,

I can not quite understand you.

Ok there is an absorber - these are the walls of the box. What prevents me from observing the electron via scattered light? And to localize it approximalely of course? Come on, are you kidding? That's been made zillions of times.

And Why do I need the Dirac equation here? This is unneccassary complication. It encompasses spin and positron, but why put all these here?

Than what interractions? The box is under deepest vacuum of course (that goes without saying).

And then what femtoseconds? The electron can be as slow as needed. And the box as long as needed too.

I am talking about a nice little electron taking the place of the poor cat. What is wrong with it?

The basic postulates still remain wrong. I have listed and published fifteen of them. They remain a monkey business.

Chapter Transactional Quantic Microphysics, Principles and Applicati...

An electron remains a charged particle, interacting with everything by its field.

No, when you do not know the position of the submarine, it does not imply that the submarine is now in a superposed state. Only your knowledge becomes so fuzzy, and has no retroaction on the reality.

Sure, the QM teachers are very embarrassed with the Dirac equation and its solutions, because they contradict their monkey postulates.

You are as fuzzy as possible. What are mixing emittor absorber Feynman theory here. I want to see how Copenhagen Interpretation will treat this.

An electron is emitted - what you say - it can not move or what?

I think the experiment on Schrodinger's cat says nothing of new from a physical viewpoint and it cannot explain a theory (QM) that is based on an inappropriate Mathematical model. Schrodinger's experiment is similar to the experiment of the game of dice with six probabilistic outcomes or the toss of a coin with two probabilistic outcomes. Similarly cat's experiment would be an event with two probabilistic outcomes.

We observe the six possible outcomes of the dice or the two possible outcomes of the coin aren't into a state of superposition but the dice has always six different outcomes and the money has always two different outcomes whether before or after the experiment. Similarly in QM the concept of superposition represents a theoretical distortion, deriving from an inappropriate Mathematical model, that is absent in the physical reality.

The theory of probability is an interesting and useful Mathematical theory, but it has to be used in appropriate manner substancialyl in two cases:

1. Predictions of the result of an event when the knowledge of dynamics of variables that define the event isn't completely known: for instance the game of dice, the toss of a coin, etc... . It is manifest that here the problem isn't represented by "hidden variables" but by an incomplete knowledge of known variables.

2. Intervention into the physical situation of an unpredictable event that changes the certain result of a deterministic event, for instance a broken-down, etc.. .

It seems to me that the behaviour of microphysical systems and of elementary particles cannot be described by these situations.

If instead of a cat you consider an electron the answer is always the same. Superposition indicates an combination of different states that gives an unique entangled state. The cat isn't in a superposition dead/live and the electron isn't in a superposition emitted/not. Before the experiment the electron can have two different states: emitted or not emitted, after the experiment the result of the event is one of the two possible outcomes. These probabilistic experiments have nothing in common with the Copenaghen interpretation that is a probabilistic interpretation relative to the intrinsic nature of elementary particles. The CI is based on an inappropriate Mathematical model.

Dr. Sasso,

but here I have one electron so CI must apply as it is an elementary particle.(though CI and other scientists would not agree that CI is lost somehow when it comes to macroworld).

Also the electron is moving and thats the difference with the cat (and similarity with the clock). I use the electron as a microscopic clock.

Yes, introducing changes in physical situations is useful to understand better them.

When you do not know where and when an electron is emitted by a potential emitter, you may tell yourself preposterous stories in the fashion of "superposed states". But your dreams have only a very loose linkage (understatement) with any reality. At the microphysical scale, never any absorber, any emitter, nor the intermédiate spaces ask you any permission for proceeding any quantic transfer.

You have no power excepted learning the physical laws of microphysics.

Jacque, from your point of view is the example with the electron offered above, a convinsing prove that CI can not explain?

In fact I would be glad to hear the opinion of a defender of CI. But aparently such a missing? (I converge to some improved variant of Broglie Bohm though some say that it tottaly disproved -e.g Sofia Wechsler).

Proofs against the Copenhaguists mythology are so many.

The most famous is the Shahriar Afshar experiment.

Far less known is the Ramsauer-Townsend transparency effect, found in 1921, heavily censured in all - but the Sivukhin - QM handbooks.

The first fact I personnaly met was in 1995, the huge capturing section of the molecule CO, for the resonant infrared photon.

Well, I read about RT effect in Wiki and didnt find anything about CI. They say that explanation was made on QM. Do I miss something?

Simply the Ramsauer-Townsend transparency effect, like all the anti-reflect layers and all the interferential colors on animals, prove that never an electron or a photon transmutes into a corpuscle. They remain waves all the time.

Leaving no room for the "anguishing incertainty of the immortal prophet" on the coordinates of the corpuscle, nor for the Bohr's mystic "dualism". Nor for any "wave function" conform to their delirium, either.

I have reproduced in the book too, the severe delirium of Linus Pauling and Bright Wilson, when they pretended (1935) to apply their corpuscularism to radiocrystallography. What a splash in the mud !

They had to invent a quantification of the momentum of the photon or of the electron ! Patatrac !

I have to specify, for informative goal, that in Deteministic Quantum Physics the Indeterminacy Principle and the dualism wave-corpuscle aren't valid. In DQP photon and electron are two different elementary particles, both with corpuscular characteristics because of their smallest sizes.

Photons are massless energy quanta and they are electromagnetic nanowaves that respect Planck's relation and the equations of the e.m. nanofield. Electrons are mass particles that emit e.m. energy in quantum shape when they are accelerated.

Photons have zero mass, zero electric charge and zero spin (in the Non-Standard Model) and they have wave nature being nanowaves.

Electrons have different from zero mass, electric charge -1 and spin=-h*/2 in the Non-Standard Model. They don't have wave nature.

Deterministic Quantum Physics and the Non-Standard Model aren't in Wikipedia because they for foundation don't consider contemporary research. Wikipedia's information is partial.

" They don't have wave nature". Though we perform Laue diffractgrams with electrons. And the Aharonov-Bohm variant (Young interference) has been repeated several times.

A Debye-Scherrer apparatus with electrons is sold by Leybold, for demonstration in classroom.

All this is recalled in the book now in public diffusion.

I have translated in english up to the middle of chapter 5. The chapters 1 and 2 are now on Researchgate.

I do not have personally practiced diffraction with neutrons. But they are in all handbooks of solid state physics.

I have demonstrated diffraction with the single photon is possible, But the diffraction with the single electron isn't possible. We observe experimentally diffraction with beams of massive particles not with the single particle. It is sufficient for proving results of Deterministic Quantum Physics. I cannot repeat always the same things. I update my knowledges.

Diffractions with individual ultra-cold helium atoms are recorded. Impact to impact, the final result is exactly the Young pattern.

Idem with electrons, one by one. Done and published.

Moreover, the theoretical reasons : no beam of fermions has a phase, but each fermion has.

You still confuse crowd effects with the properties of the individual waves.

Chapter Transactional Quantic Microphysics, Principles and Applicati...

You don't Fourier's integral analysis. My knowledges prove the single electron produces on a screen only one point and not a diffraction. If you insist in saying the single electron produces a diffraction on the screen and you confirm this result is proved in the paper that you propose, I will read it and I will write here what I think about. You would have to do the same think with my paper. In my profile, in contributions, yoi find the papers: 1. On physical properties of the radiant energy, 2. Photon diffraction. Greetings.

You are both right and wrong.

The particles (or something that clicks just one detector) exist and also have wave nature. (QM)

But the CI and Born probability functions are wrong. (the one thing I show with my last exampe - no one wants to explain it from CI view point though it is said that 80% of the physicists believe in it and there are 170 + reads). In my opinion the wave is real (in the sense that it describing some objective events) but it can interract only with its own particle and as soon as the particle is localized in an atom the events stop very quick.

I am not sure about the latter. It is good to make a Young experiment where the electron is localized for a short interval and then proceeds to interfere again. (It will be very tricky because this will change the electron)

@ Daniele Sasso.

One electron is not a crowd of electrons.

The historical experiments published by Thomas Young in 1802 resulted from crowds of photons on crowds of potential absorbers, so many they were considered as a continuum.

An experiment with only one photon at once in the chamber takes months, but it was done. With scarce electrons too, it was achieved.

Each individual wave interferes with itself.

The trick with fermions is that you have to use the de Broglie spatial frequency for self-interferences, but the Schrödinger-Dirac frequency for the electromagnetic interactions, like the Compton scattering, or the Gouanère and Al. experiment. The last was at relativistic energies.

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m625.pdf

@Jacques Lavau,

you support, also in your paper, the physical view that is based on the dualism wave-corpuscle and on the De Broglie's equivalent wavelength lambda=h/mv. As per this view all particles are waves.

My view instead is based on a criticism towards the ordinary Quantum Mechanics and this criticism has been formalized in two theories: 1. Deterministic Quantum Physics and 2. Non-Standard Model.

In these theories electron is a mass particle and the equivalent wavelength of an electron is just virtual (i.e. unreal) and this equivalence has only the function of a suitable Mathematical model in a few situations. Similarly energy quanta are waves and in a few physical situations it can be useful to associate an equivalent mass with these quanta (for instance photons). That is in DQP and in NSM there isn't dualism but all fermions are mass particles and all energy quanta are bosons. Now if you follow a different theory, that in actuality is the mainstream theory, while I subscribe to a different theory that is critical towards the mainstream theory, it is normal that we think otherwise.

Besides I would want to specify that I didn't write that "one electron is a crowd of electrons".

I wrote and I support this: when you visualize one electron on the screen, placed after a slit, you don't have a picture of diffraction but all experiments prove you have visualized one point. Only after you have visualized on the screen many electrons, one by one, that form a crowd of electrons, you begin to visualize a picture of diffraction. It proves that not the single electron, but a crowd of electrons, also one by one, form a picture of diffraction. If we disagree with this it is hard to go ahead. Anyway you can be comforted by the fact that your view is shared by the greater part of postmodern physicists while my view is a critical viewpoint that only a few know. Greetings.

Seriously odd, your reading ! Where in my work could you find any kind of "duality"? For years and years and years I am covered with reproaches because I explain that "corpuscles" and "corpuscular aspects" do not exist in microphysics. They weep because I have broken their mystic "duality". I presume you have never practiced interferences nor radiocrystallography. I have confounded an international crook in an international trial, by radiocrystallography. http://impostures.deontologic.org/index.php?topic=133.0

We had obtained Laue diffractograms on the big Siemens electronic microscope, of carbide inclusions. Yes, electronic diffractograms.

With "virtual" electronic waves, you live in a virtual physics, never existing.

Equipement sold by Leybold, for the classrooms : http://deonto-famille.org/citoyens/debattre/index.php/topic,1570.0.html

@Jacque Lavau,

how do you explain what happens to the wave after clicking a detector. Why can it not click another detector on the same distance but at another place?

"Detector" is YOUR world. You still have to prove that your world of big animal, with YOUR Newtonian macro-time, has competence to describe the microphysical realities. Louis de Broglie in 1924, Erwin Schrödinger in 1926 have proved that any atom, any molecule, from a stationary state to another stationary state can change its state only by emitting or absorbing a full quantum of action per cycle, or looping h. So any successful transaction transfers exactly one quantum of looping h.

Unsuccessful transactions? That is the ground noise, the lapping of all the Dirac-de-Broglie waves.

Do you deny that all experiments (a beam splitter and two detectors) are objective? Do you mean than there is only a wave to the one detector? I am interested in your theory but make it as much clear as possible. If you use some fuzzy constructs no one would listen to you even if you are right.(and understand)

Do the absorbers have quantized states, yes or no? Your "detector" of something incoming, comprises absorbers, yes or no ?

So the syntax of the absorption is not free from quantic rules.

@Jacques can you give a concise explanation of the Young experiment from point of view of absorber emitter theory like i make hereafter from my point of view (it is not a theory but a hypothesis):

1. the emitter (source) launches a wave which spreads towards the 2 slits

2. a bit later the particle is launched

3. it is guided to one of the slits by the wave (which one is statistics)

4. after the slits the wave interferes with itself and guides the paricle and it goes to the intreference maxima statistically

5. it makes the detector click via simple interaction

6. the wave has no effect on any detector - and procceds to move to eternity without possibility to be observed

7. it can be observed only by its particle before it has interacted in such a manner that its characteristics have changed

8. if something interacts with the particle at the slit (it is changed and can not follow its wave); then it goes with the wavelet from that slit

9. if the wave is observed at the other slit it is hindered from moving to the screen and hence no intereference is observed

Can you describe EA theory in such clear manner. Pls do if you can. Then if you want criticise the above suggestion. But pls make it point by point.

Regards

I do not understand what could be your "EA theory".

Your idea of "particle" has no correspondent in the reality.

Your mind habits of a Newtonian time with a galore of "later, then, ..." have no correspondent in the reality.

No one of your nine points corresponds to any reality.

For 1802 to 2018 and further, we still need a crowd of individual transfers by individual waves (photons or neutrons or electrons, it does not matter) to state a full pattern of interference.

Each individual wave interferes with itself, BUT their absorbers are usually of small size, compared to our size, as big animals.

In the 17th century, Pierre de Fermat had proved that each real light path gives nearly the same phase as its close neighbors. But he the could not yet precise the diameter of the Fermat spindle, as he did not know the wavelength.

Only Thomas Young measured the wavelengths. He was the first to achieve that, 1802.

When you dimension then mount an Aharonov-Bohm experiment, you must do the right calculation, to obtain that each Fermat spindle for each electron, is well split into two spindles, one above the micro-solenoid, the other under. Well mastered, now.

The mere clouds do not give rainbows. Not all diameters of water drops give a rainbow. There is a threshold, fuzzy indeed, but real. When I will have collected enough meteorological data, I will confirm or infirm my theoretical evaluation of the diameters of the Fermat spindles.

"EA theory" is abbreviation for Emitter Absorber theory advocated by Feynman et al. with waves from the future etc. (I am not acquainted exactly but I think Feynman made it for fun) I though you adhere to that theory but maybe I am wrong. The idea of "particle" is not mine and can not have “no correspondent in the reality”, because it is just experimentalist view (a click in the detector – Peres). “Your mind habits of a Newtonian time with a galore of "later, then, ..." have no correspondent in the reality.” Do you mean in micro reality, because in macro reality there is no doubt. I am really curious what you say – there is no time and everything happens at the same instant or what (will be good if you send me the no-tomorrow lottery numbers). “No one of your nine points corresponds to any reality.” Ok this is good critique but without any justification. “For 1802 to 2018 and further, we still need a crowd of individual transfers by individual waves (photons or neutrons or electrons, it does not matter) to state a full pattern of interference. Each individual wave interferes with itself, BUT their absorbers are usually of small size, compared to our size, as big animals. “ So far so good I can agree …and than…what follows… “In the 17th century, Pierre de Fermat had proved that each real light path gives nearly the same phase as its close neighbors.” Is this not obvious? Why should he prove that? This is used in Feynman integrals without prove. “But he the could not yet precise the diameter of the Fermat spindle, as he did not know the wavelength.” What is spindle – never heard of such thing in physics “Only Thomas Young measured the wavelengths. He was the first to achieve that, 1802. “ Of course – that’s well known. “When you dimension then mount an Aharonov-Bohm experiment, you must do the right calculation, to obtain that each Fermat spindle for each electron, is well split into two spindles, one above the micro-solenoid, the other under. “ I know well Aharonov-Bohm experiment (you mean the magnetic field unaccessable for the electrons) But here I can get nothing at all what do you mean with it? “The mere clouds do not give rainbows. Not all diameters of water drops give a rainbow. There is a threshold, fuzzy indeed, but real. When I will have collected enough meteorological data, I will confirm or infirm my theoretical evaluation of the diameters of the Fermat spindles.” This thresholds are where we can not see (infrared and unltraviolet). What does this mean for the spindles (well I don’t know what are they at all) ? And now – where is the explanation of Yound double slit experiment? 1. 2. 3. ??? in this spindles theory?

@ Ilian Peruhov

Please edit your message, as it was heavily compacted by the bugs in the editor. Please re-air it.

You ask me to re-explain without drawings what I have already published, in correct conditions.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/microphysique-quantique-transactionnelle-principes-et-applications/paperback/product-23362834.html

The english translation is now at 28%.

The spindles were pieces of wood, tapered at each end, used to spin the wool.

When an electron is stationary around an atom, the solutions of the Schrödinger equation give a good image of what is this stationary wave. But when it is emitted by an atom and is transfered to another atom, the Fermat's discovery allows it to enlarge its path, in some calculable limits. This is what I had approximated in May 1998. So is the geometry of the Fermat spindles.

@ Ilian Peruhov When you write "click", you think in your human perception of time with your senses and your neurons. It has nothing to do with the duration of the quantic reaction in a transfer, in the "point of view" of the absorber, or of the emitter. Moreover, never the emitter nor the absorber will directly tell you anything on this duration; you may only monitor the toggle of their state, if it toggles. Only exist some indirect means, such as statistically measuring the length of coherence.

For instance, a 21 cm hydrogen photon may have a plausible length about 210,000 km, 0.7 seconds. And you call that "a click"?

Writing here is hard and alowslow. I wrote in Word and then pasted but the Editor has removed all 'enter'.

"EA theory" is abbreviation for Emitter Absorber theory advocated by Feynman et al. with waves from the future etc. (I am not acquainted exactly but I think Feynman made it for fun) I though you adhere to that theory but maybe I am wrong.

The idea of "particle" is not mine and can not have “no correspondent in the reality”, because it is just experimentalist view (a click in the detector – Peres).

“Your mind habits of a Newtonian time with a galore of "later, then, ..." have no correspondent in the reality.” Do you mean in micro reality, because in macro reality there is no doubt. I am really curious what you say – there is no time and everything happens at the same instant or what (will be good if you send me the no-tomorrow lottery numbers).

“No one of your nine points corresponds to any reality.” Ok this is good critique but without any justification.

“For 1802 to 2018 and further, we still need a crowd of individual transfers by individual waves (photons or neutrons or electrons, it does not matter) to state a full pattern of interference. Each individual wave interferes with itself, BUT their absorbers are usually of small size, compared to our size, as big animals. “ So far so good I can agree …and than…what follows…

“For 1802 to 2018 and further, we still need a crowd of individual transfers by individual waves (photons or neutrons or electrons, it does not matter) to state a full pattern of interference. Each individual wave interferes with itself, BUT their absorbers are usually of small size, compared to our size, as big animals. “ So far so good I can agree …and than…what follows…

“When you dimension then mount an Aharonov-Bohm experiment, you must do the right calculation, to obtain that each Fermat spindle for each electron, is well split into two spindles, one above the micro-solenoid, the other under. “ I know well Aharonov-Bohm experiment (you mean the magnetic field unaccessable for the electrons) But here I can get nothing at all what do you mean with it?

“The mere clouds do not give rainbows. Not all diameters of water drops give a rainbow. There is a threshold, fuzzy indeed, but real. When I will have collected enough meteorological data, I will confirm or infirm my theoretical evaluation of the diameters of the Fermat spindles.” This thresholds are where we can not see (infrared and unltraviolet). What does this mean for the spindles (well I don’t know what are they at all) ?

And now – where is the explanation of Yound double slit experiment? 1. 2. 3. ??? in this spindles theory?

Why then cant you put out how your theory describes Young in 10 simple steps as I have done for my view? Newton wrote a book of 1000 pages but the principles take half of a page.

There is nothing inside an electron (at leaat spindals). It has spin and charge mass and is pointlike.

In 1941, the novelties in ideas in the Wheeler-Feynman team came from Wheeler. Later Feyman repudiated them, and so missed the train.

At Cornell University, the main idea in the mind of Feynman was to go in bed with all the wifes of the colleagues. So he had to be victorious but conformist. One must have priorities in his/her life!

With the bugs of the RG editor, the solution is to let it do wrong, then edit the text manually and correct its mistakes, then save again.

Though tedious, it works.

In Deterministic Quantum Physics (DQP) and in The Non-Standard Model (NSM) there are two different types of particle: energy particles and mass particles. The concept of "particle" (or corpuscle) indicates only a physical entity characterized by smallest sizes otherwise than ordinary bodies thst have atomic and superatomic sizes. Particles, wheter of energy or mass, aren't pointlike (i.e. with zero sizes) but they have smallest sizes. In the event of energy particles sizes are identified by Planck's frequency and wavelength, in the event of mass particles sizes are identified by de Broglie's relation on the equivalent wavelength lambda=h/mv.(the usefulness of de Broglie's relation is this: it doesn't mean a mass particle is a wave.

All experiments on the double slit (including Young, Feynman, etc...) can be understood if before one understands experiments on the diffraction with one slit. The correct interpretation of experiments on diffraction of mass particles, including electrons or other mass particles, proves the single electron produces on the screen, placed after one slit, a picture with shape of point. It nevertheless doesn't have zero size but smallest finite sizes. Only after that a gratest number of electrons (or other mass particles) reach the screen a picture of diffraction, due to scattering, begins to form on the screen and that picture is similar to a picture of interference.

Young, Feynman and other's mistake is a mistake of interpretation of experiments, in fact experiments don't prove the single electron has wave nature but the picture of diffraction through one slit (or of interference through two slits) on the screen is explained theoretically by the development of Fourier's integral with regard to a beam of mass partickles.

References for widenings:

Article On the Physical Structure of Radiant Energy: Waves and Corpuscles

Article Photon Diffraction

@ Ilian Peruhov . For the rainbow, the (fuzzy) threshold on the minimum diameter of the drops is to produce a rainbow at all. Simple clouds, simple fog do not produce rainbows. Sometimes white bows.

Will I predict the correct threshold, depending on the distance from the eye to the rain ?

@Jacque thanks for the advice for RG editor. I'll try.

• I see you like to keep your priority for your contributions to Transactional theory - I tried to read one of your papers but have not so much time which made end without results. All I want to see is an explanation of DSE of Young 1801. I have no time to read many pagers and to stay with empty hands. I think no one gives money for theories and its useless to try keeping fame also (you know that b.e. the Arago spot was observed by an anknown physicist 100 or 200 years ago).
• So go ahead and popularize how Transsectional theory explains it? Not neccassarilly very technically but as idea. This is the ultimate mistery in microworld (Feynman again) and any theory should start with it and then go further.
• Like I made it in my suggestion. By the way you don't actually say what is wrong with it - can it explain DSE or not and why? My suggestion is based on Broglie Bohm with the addition of anobservability - no interraction of the wave with other particles (just with its own). What is wrong here? Are there experimental data against it?
• Btw you method for the RG editor works a bit.

@Danielle one slit diffraction also has min and max due to the wave nature.

1. Why in DQP an individual particle goes to where the wave points out (e.g max)? Does it interract with the walls of the slit and how? I am sure that a particle with the exp.size of the electron has almost 0 chance to interact and hence could not show max and min.

2. What if you have a second slit much away for small sized (even not point like particle). How it will sense it? Btw I published (look on my question page) an experiment for DSE where the slits are separated - do you think it will show interference in DQP?

3. Have you looked at my explanation (based on BB with some addition)

of DSE? Does it explain DSE in your point of view and if not why? Best regards

When we were 18 years old students, we were taught the geometrical calculations for the Young interference, and the results about reinforcing or annihilating contributions of fields coming from each slit to each given points of the screen.

The construction used the weathered methods of the geometrical optics.

The geometrical constructions remain the same in transactional physics.

Some meanings change.

The causality changes : a half comes from the emitter, a half comes from the absorber.

The optical impedance receives the values : more or less dark, or bright, between a given potential absorber and a potential emitter. The old geometrical calculation for that remains valid. Add the coefficients of emissivity and acceptances as usual for the temperatures of the source and of the absorber.

The optical impedance rules the probability that transactions may succeed, may emerge from the ground noise.

What is new upon Augustin Fresnel, is that we can calculate the mid-journey width (in the vacuum) of each photon, and have a way to compare to the width of the slits. But there, the theory needs more investigations, both experimental and theoretical.

About the minimum diameter of rain drops giving a rainbow, I still do not know whether the drop can focus and pinch the ray coming from the sun, or cannot. More coming later.

Added 9 December:

The ground noise of the lapping of all the Dirac-de-Broglie permanent waves performs the groping of the optical impedances, for all paths and all transactions.

Comparatively, only a few successful transactions emerge.

Amongst all the big waves in the tempests, only a few of them converge and become rogue waves, more than 30 meters high. More frequent in the Agulhas.

Dear Ilian,

when you make use of acronyms (DSE, BB, etc..) you would have to explain always what they mean.

Anyway there is a condition for having diffraction: X=lambda where X is the width of the slit and lambda is the size of particle. In the event of photon, thatb has wave nature, the size lambda coincides with the real wavelength of the wavefunction that represents the photon. In the event of a mass particle (for instance electron), that doesn't have wave nature, the size lambda coincides with Compton's equivalent wavelength, in that case nevertheless it needs a great number of electrons for having diffraction due to scattering . The same condition is valid also for everyone of the two slits in the event of interference. Pictures of diffraction and of interference are practically similar.

For me, a BB is a locomotive with two bogies of two axles, all motorized.

In another context it was a series of monotype sailing racers, designed by Borge Bringersvaard.

Well i am trying to learn both your theories but you are not very helpfull anyway. Sorry about abreviations but I thought the subject of the discussion reveals that DSE is double slit experiment, andl BB is Broglie Bohm.

@Jacques theory. You pretty well can restore the results of DSE with 2 waves. But there are much logical errors therein. At a 1 glance i'll give you 4.

1. What makes an absorber emit a wave (there is no reason)

2. Anyway even if so why does the absorber not change after it emits his waves constantly? (absolutely unreasonably!!!!)

3. Where do all waves go? (in another Universe or what?)

4. You talk that everything is waves. But what are the emitter and absorber made of? Are they waves or not?

If you answer these questions i am sure i can ask 5 more.

@Danielle - I come with a comment on your theory later. I would be happy if you comment Jacues theory and my remarks to it.

Let us take the example of the absorption of a 2170 cm-1 infrared photon captured by a CO molecule.

No one oscillator steps lower than 1/2 h.

So this molecule always vibrates at the frequency 65.05 Terahertz. It is its way to signal to potential emitters it can absorb a photon at this frequency.

After absorption, it may desexcite by bumping another molecule in the gas.

For 1928, we know that each electron has two of its components at negative energy, retrochronous. We do not know how many more components, more complex fermions have, but we are sure that half of their components are retrochronous. Relativity obligates.

Where is the mystery in the fact that the Dirac-de-Broglie ground noise is bi-directional in all the micro-times? Dirac provided, we just have to read.

dear Ilian,

you write: "Well i am trying to learn both your theories but you are not very helpfull anyway. "

I don't understand where I can be useful if you don't ask me explanations on concepts that you want to expand.

dear Jacques,

in the Theory of Reference Frames (TR) that, with regard to questions of relativity, completes preceding theories (DQP and NSM) negative energies are characteristic of massive particles (electrons, etc...) when they are into a state of instability. I don't know if it can be useful for you.

@ Jacques I dont see you to answer any of the 4 questions (Q1-4) posed by me. Well there is a try maybe for Q1? Well this is a fact for the oscillations in ground state but CO2 or any other molecule does not emit anything (you know just from higher level to a lower one)

Correct me if I am wrong - I have the impression that in your theory there is no room for particles? And then what is CO2 - particle or wave?

What is Dirac-de Broglie ground noise? I never heard of it nor could I find in any book or online?

Danielle,

I wonder in your theory what is the width of a photon? It turns out that is has macroscopic dimensions? (X=lambda and even more d+2X) All current data show that it is pointlike. At least in your theory it can react with electron which is much smaller.

Very important - does your photon splits in two in DSE and why is never observed splitted?

Dirac-de Broglie ground noise : I am the only one author.

It was discussed on Usenet (fr.sci.physique) in 2005 to 2007 with Bernard Chaverondier and Didier Lauwaert.

De Broglie en 1923-1924, Dirac in 1928 provided the necessary materials, but did not notice the implications.

Good question on the CO molecule. In the zeolites science, we usually rate about 3 Å diameter for O atom or H2O molecule. CO is credited 4.7 Å for long diameter. You know that any static solution of Schrödinger equation decreases exponentially with the distance from the nucleus or nuclei, so any "diameter" is fuzzy.

Anyway the capture cross section of CO molecule for the resonating photon is astonishing.

In 1982, Craig F. Bohren asked: "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?". Am. J. Phys.51 (4), april 1983.

See H. Paul and R. Fisher too, same publication.

Thermodynamics deals with the flows of energy. It flows from hot stars to cold space, and the macro-time as a statistical emergence, flows in the same way as the entropy does. However, nearing an absorber, it is far more practical and sensible to use and calculate the anti-photon, with negative energy and antichronous micro-time, emitted by the absorber towards the emitter.

Wrong key !

" does your photon splits in two in DSE and why is never observed splitted?"

"Observing" requires a transfer of a h quantum.

You cannot buy nor sell electromagnetism by less than one quantum of looping h.

The point is a geometrical entity with zero sizes, It has no meaning in physics and I don't understand why you persist in making use of this concept. Physical particles don't have zero sizes but they have smallest finite sizes. Between the two things there is a big difference.

In my theory physical sizes of a photon are identified by the real wavelength that represents the e.m. nanowave of photon. This wavelength depends by the frequency in concordance with Planck's relation. If we consider optical photons, the wavelength lambda varies in the range (4-8)10-7m. In order to have diffraction of optical photons it is necessary that X=(about)lambda where X is the width of the slit. In order to have diffraction with rays X instead it is necessary that the width of the split is in the range 10-9:10-13m. In that case therefore crystal lattices are necessary.

Electron isn't a wave like photon, but it is a mass particle whose sizes can be calculated as per the Compton equivalent wavelength. The result is lambdaeq=0.24x10-11m. Electrons therefore behaves like rays X. Photon is an indivisible particle and in DSE generally before the apparatus with two slits there is an apparatus with only one slit.

The elementary particles are considered pointlike in the Standard model. At least they are pointlike for all practical uses. But nevertheless - thats not the point.

I dont understand how your photon which you say is 500 nanometers interferes when the slits that are 2 mm apart.

An empirical control is easy : what is the minimum diameter of a laser cavity? Of a laser diode?

@Daniele Sasso : " mass particle whose sizes can be calculated as per the Compton equivalent wavelength. The result is lambdaeq=0.24x10-11m. Electrons therefore behaves like rays X ".

Seriously false.

You do not have performed any electronic radiocrystallography.

You pretends fantastic wavelength, independant of the tension of acceleration.

Again, with your ideas, how the microsolenoid for an Aharonov-Bohm experiment, could be 40 µm wide?

Your professors must have been weird persons.

Optical photon, i.e. belonging to the band of light, has wavelengths into the range (400-800)nanometers. The single photon doesn't interfere but it can diffract. It needs always to distinguish between a process of diffraction and a process of interference. Similarly I wrote I proved the Standard Model isn't acceptable from my viewpoint anf on this account I have developed the Non-Standard Model.

@Jacques Lavau, in my comment I have specified that I was considering the Compton equivalent wavelength. I was considering relativistic electrons at high velocity. With small tensions of acceleration you have effectively electrons with greater wavelengths.

I had many excellent professors in my curriculum of student who taught me above all to understand concepts with critical mind. Pleas let you respect my professors.

Danielle, I wonder dont ever heard of interference of single photons. To my knowledge they were performed from 1950 onward many times and interference is indeed have been observed. The trials lasted moths.

To my knowledge the process of interference of the single photon is always preceded by a process of diffraction and it explains because a process of interference is possible with a single photon.

" the Compton equivalent wavelength " is very important for the yankees, as it promotes a yankee.

But the same frantically forget the Broglian intrinsic frequency mc²/h. And they forget too the Dirac-Schrödinger frequency 2mc²/h.

I defy you to exhibit any experiment where your Compton wl plays any role as wavelength, and not as a trick to hide the intrinsic frequency.

I am impressed by the long discussion that is going on here. May I make some comments.

It was said that a simple cloud makes no rainbow. Let me tel you that I had the special luck that I have been flying in an airplane with a seat at the window. At such occasion I could see the shadow of the airplane on the clouds surrounded by a full circle rainbow. A normal cloud with drops too small to fall as rain and yet I saw the rainbow.

About the diffraction and wave behaviour of photons. In the Chip design industry we design in the moment structures with dimensions of 40 nm and smaller. These structures are defined with edges accurate to 0.1nm. That is 10-10m and according to my knowledge one angstrom. In order to bring these structures on a chip we need masks. The problem with these masks is that we need a light source with a wavelength short enough to give the proper sharp result. The solution, that is used there, is that the mask, the slit, is placed less than half the wavelength of the used light away from the target. Under that condition it is no more valid that light is a wave but only the photon mode is valid. The large wave that would not give any clear picture on larger distance gives the needed sharp picture. Of cause we need for that that the wafers are flat down to atom level accuracy and that the masks also are flat to those dimensions. It is big business and I guess that you are reading these words while using chips with those features.

Inside silicon in semiconductors we have two kinds of charge carriers. We have extra electrons and we have shortage of electrons, called holes. Both transport charge. In case of a hole an electron jumps into an empty spot in the crystal covalent connections and with that leaves an empty space from where it was before. That empty space is filled with another electron making the empty space move. In the case of electrons we have an electron that is not used in the covalent connection of the crystal and that moves around in the lattice. Now we can see what happens if we increase the electric field. With a low field strength the electron and the hole move from atom to atom. With larger fields the electron can start to jump longer distances. a hole can't do that. So an electron can become ballistic and get so much speed that it can penetrate an isolator and get stuck there. That changes the charge of the isolator. We have trapped charges. that is damage to the function. In this situation we have to calculate that an electron is an object and not a wave function.

In a slit setup a single electron is accelerated in a field from emitter to absorber. When a unit of charge moves through space it means that its electric field changes the existing field. At the moment of emission there is an initial deviation from the expected direct line from emitter to absorber so there are many paths that this electron could go and there is a probability function on these paths. The electric field of the electron is always moving with the speed of light. The electron it self can move with cm per sec. (Yes, my physics teacher made a setup where he could let an electron emit and then wait some seconds before that electron was detected at the absorber. LEED Low Energy Electronic Diffraction). What happens is that the electric field will go through both slits and after the slit interferes with itself. In this interference pattern of the electric field during the flight of the electron somewhere the actual electron is riding the waves. So nothing strange that we observe that the arrival location probability of the electron at the absorber is influenced by the split to form an interference pattern.

Danielle, let me see how you account for 1 photon interference with a photon localized on 1 slit and diffracted there. There is no way - if you dont have the wave to go tru the other slit as is in Broglie Bohm

and observed for mean trajectories in the exper of S. Kohen et.al.

Btw how does the photon go tru smaller than lambda aperture.

@ Paul Gradenwitz.

Nothing in the real world is the " large wave " which is drawn in the standard handbooks.

Nothing in the real world is the diverging " wave function " which is written in the standard handbooks.

The standard teaching by the heirs of the Göttingen-København sect relies on surreptitious corpuscularist postulates, and the confusion between the individual waves and the crowds on individual waves.

In all the handbooks and all the lectures, the Born-Heisenberg ideation is now coded with the soldering iron. Impossible to correct them without pain.

@ Paul Gradenwitz.

I have opened the old tables, and read that the interatomic distance in silicon is about 2.3 Å. So I doubt you obtain an accuracy of 1 Å.

@Jacques, the French physicist De Broglie had the historical and scientific merit of understanding firstly an electrodynamic mass particle, like for instance the electron, had an equivalent wavelength even if it isn't a wave. The American physicist Compton started from De Broglie's idea and he defined the equivalent wavelength of electron at higest velocities.

I subscribe to Paul Gradenwitz's considerations on optical properties of photon and on corpuscular properties of electron. They are studied normally into an ordinary course of electronics on semiconductors.

Thank you Jacques and Danielle,

I understood that you can not explain the DSE in anyway with your theories. And surely is so - because all evidence are there - not just wave (Jacques) and not just particle (Danielle). There are both. And also The Copenhagen interpretation that the wave is probability is unscientific. Because nothing (probability) can not influence something (particle).

So one has to stick to BB and find out why the wave becomes unobservable (or is extremely hard to be observed) after the particle is observed (mostly meaning anihilated for photon).

@ Daniele Sasso .

If de Broglie understood that the electron IS the wave, and nothing else, then he would have the second genius idea of his life. He had not.

Schrödinger had, and published, so became immmediately harassed by Niels Bohr, who intensely demoralized him.

So the sect Göttingen-København became hegemonic : by sheer violence against two too polite men.

@ Ilian Peruhov. The interferences were explained in the 19th century, notably by Augustin Fresnel, 1819. Yes or no ?

What is new now ? In 1819 they could only have crowds of photons = crowds of individual waves.

Now some laboratories can deal with individual photons, individual electrons, individual helium atoms, so on.

Whatever be the optical device or crystal in between, any individual wave has only one emitter and only one absorber.

I do not see where could be the difficulty to understand so simple things.

@Jacques

Around 25 posts above I asked you 4 question about Emitter Absorber theory. You answered none so far.

What is your difficulty with them? EAT is not a serious construct and there are little scientist to believe in it. And if they do they are just believers.

I do not deal with your "EAT".

Yours ideas are weird, and far too much contradictory. I cannot understand the walls and the holes which are in your head.

Your "the particle goes" is alien to any physical understanding in the domain of microphysics.

I checked my layout database. It is one nm resolution 10 Å or about 4 atoms, sorry. Still the deep UV light has a too long wavelength to make shapes that resemble rounded edge lines with a radius of less than 5 nm.

I hope you all know about the experiments with entangled particles. Now China has demonstrated the transfer of information via entanglement by holding a videoconference over such data communication line. It is the entanglement that to my understanding is the basis of this discussion. Probability and predefinition of the state of matter does not solve the results of entanglements.

In the post before there is mentioned an Emitter Absorber theory and later a reference to an acronym EAT. I assume that this acronym stands for that theory.

I would be very interested if I could see how each of the participants could explain what the difference in their view with respect to the view of the other. Under ideal conditions we would come to the same opinion about what is the difference. From that agreement of the difference the path to a solution is simpler.

@Jacques here are the 4 questions again. There are no walls and no holes in my head but in the DSE of Young.

1. What makes an absorber emit a wave (there is no reason)

2. Anyway even if so why does the absorber not change after it emits his waves constantly? (absolutely unreasonably!!!!)

3. Where do all waves go? (in another Universe or what?)

4. You talk that everything is waves. But what are the emitter and absorber made of? Are they waves or not?

I can ask many more revealing the lack of reason in your EAT or Transactional variant but am sure you want answer these 4.

Paul Gradenwitz.

What you described is not a rainbow, but a glory, surrounding the shadow of the plane:

http://www.philiplaven.com

@Ilian Perohov. Your point 1 (and 2 and 3). I have never endorsed such a fantasmagoric scenario.

I have explained many times that the groping is permanent.

Even Niels Bohr had implied it when controversing against Einstein. But he could not explain how, as so he should have to recognize the discoveries from de Broglie, and it would be too much for him : Niels treated de Broglie as the idiot of the village.

The Dirac equation explains that the groping is bidirectional in micro-times.

Point 4: Yes, when defeated by Bohr, Schrödinger was forced to abjure. However his demonstration in 1926 remains : all the electronic corteges around a nucleus are stationary waves.

Things are more complex in condensed matter: phonons and conduction electrons, or spin waves etc. are complexely moving in interaction with the exterior. Nothing stationnary in the climbing of a dislocation, under thermal activation. Only at 0 (zero) K a condensed matter could become completely stationary.

Ok can you offer a coherent basic description in 1 page of the basic principles. (remember that even QM can be put in 5 principles)? (I know your chapters but its too much to read in vain at the end. If i get something worth it in a basic 1 page description I will read them.)

So far the picture is very ridiculous: stationary waves groping (by what - a field??) other stationary waves from the future. (And does DSE exist at all somewhere in between - as you write there are no slits and walls)

Five principles plus fifteen more clandestine and surreptitious postulates, all incompatible with experimental facts.

Paul Gradenwitz : " the experiments with entangled particles ".

Sure your knowledge may be in entangled state. But you have not proved that your knowledge is isomorphous to the physical realities.

When the submarine has plunged and became invisible, maybe your knowledge is in a superposed state.

The grebes pose the same problem : where they will emerge next? Where to point my binoculars?

What you call an entangled state is a mere five-partners transaction: one emitter, two absorbers, and the space and/or optical devices in between. And the laws of the microphysics do not bother about which one of the absorbers comes sooner or later in your human frame. They do not dwell in our macro-time.

Jacques Lavau,

I tried to refer to the Bell's theorem.

I read out of your postings that you have the opinion that everything is waves and no particles. I would like to agree with you but still have problem with the damage I get in my oxide when I accelerate electrons through my silicon and the damage that not happens when I drive holes through my silicon. It might be possible that you can describe all this with pure wave functions.

What I described around the airplane shadow is the glory. But the edge of that glory is a rainbow in the same angle as usual. When you look at a rainbow on the ground the inside also is brighter. That also is the glory. But I agree that there is a need for a minimum size of drops to get a clear colourful rainbow.

Thank you.

Paul

@ Paul Gradenwitz. But are you master of choosing who in the world will be absorber, or not? The electrons still have a mass and an inertia. The electrons guns and wehnelts work so.

Remember the Just so stories by Rudyard Kipling: " I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me. ".

The astronomers focussed on the emitting stars, and forgot the dark space, because "nearly all absorbers are alike to me".

@Jcques Can you recommend a short article on Transcectional Interpretation. I tried to find and it was just 2-3 articles of Cramer. I dont wanrt to go into details but to understand the scheme. You wrote that my TI is fantasmagoric. But what is the real TI? I especially want to see DSE explained in TI. Again I can't find anything.

John Cramer is the author of the words : transaction, transactional.

His words are better than mine : retrosymmetry.

I had already explained mainy times that the Young diffraction and interferences were fully explained in the 19th century: Augustin Fresnel, 1819.

When the difference of optical path is integer in wavelengths: clear fringe.

Half-integer: dark.

Two centuries later, this is still perfect.

What is new, is that experimentally we can, and theoretically we could deal with individual waves, the photons, instead of only crowds of individual waves.

The diameter and the general geometry of this wave, a Fermat spindle, is not in Cramer. I am the author, for 1998. Still an imperfect approximation.

The introduction of optical admittance and concurrency function are not in Cramer. I am the author.

The de-Broglie-Dirac ground noise is not in Cramer. Lots of sources of TIQM he ignores.

Maybe in fine J.G. Cramer could distinguish between micro-times and macro-time. Maybe, I do not know, I did not buy his book by Springer (at Springer price). Surely his followers could not: they still struggle in philosophical bear-traps with their "causal loops".

An individual wave has only one emitter, and only one absorber. If you know that, you easily find the remaining. But few exceptions, the Bremsstrahlung and the synchrotron radiation, both emitter and absorber are held by the quantic rules that govern any stationary state.

Fresnel explained it for waves, (in fact Young explained it first).

But the wave must be registered in all detectors (on the whole screen) at once which is not the case with single photons (if you prefer low intensities).

A single photon has only one absorber.

You have not yet assimilated that a beam, of electrons, or any other fermions are not a wave. They are crowds of waves.

The same with light, with incoherent sources.

More discussion about a coherent beam, coming from a laser. In the laser cavity, there was no mean to discern a photon from the others. But outside, unless they get into another interferometer and stay there in a stationary wave, each photon runs to an individual fate.

So again though a slight bunching, the beam is no more a wave, but a crowd of individual waves.

"So again though a slight bunching, the beam is no more a wave, but a crowd of individual waves."

Do you imagine the wave from a point source like individual rays? I need to pinpoint how these crowd of waves look like in the most simple case.

Btw your dogma "A single photon has only one absorber." is not true.

Article One Photon Can Simultaneously Excite Two or More Atoms

It is fundamentally the same law. One gamma may materialize into two electrons, one + and one -.

One positron and one electron may immaterialize into two gammas. That is the basis of TEP.

The team at Institut d'Optique d'Orsay used atoms producing two correlated photons.

Never an absorber nor an emitter are points. No reaction of the atomic physics is more concentrated than a full atom. When a CO molecule absorbs an IR resonating photon, the reaction is not smaller than the molecule.

The "answer" is completly off the question. In Theoretical Physics one is always forced to deal with simplifications. In fact an emitting atom is very close to point source. So tell what an atom emitts - what crowd of waves?

Have you ever read Schrödinger ?

http://www.mat.unimi.it/users/galgani/arch/Schroedinger.pdf

I havent read Schoedinger in original. Is there something important in it which is banned in ordinary QM books?

I really thought you have some theory of your own. But I see this not the case. Instead you are sending me to Fresnel than to Schrodinger? I am asking - Do you have in fact your picture on how to DSE happens? If you have then let be seen. I am not going to read old pictures telling fairy tales.

Fresnel theory isnt applicable at low intensities. And Schr. wavefunction tries to explain evrything with nothing .(I mean that the WF is not a real object).

So in the end: do you have another picture?

In the paper I had pointed at, Schrödinger gave the theory of the emission of photon by an excited atom, with alas two blunders:

So nor absorption nor emission can be "pinpoint". In the domain of the atomic physics, they are at least as big as an atom. In the domain of nuclear physics, such as the Mössbauer effect, they are at least of the size of a nucleus.

Written 8 december : optical impedance, depending on the optical device, here two Young slits.

Written or not written ?