Weak measurement are a relatively new trend in quantum experiment. They mean to determine the so-called Bohmian velocity, but in fact they measure the average linear momentum while disturbing very little the wave-function in each trial of the experiment. Thus, in each trial, after such a measurement one can do additional measurements on the wave-function negligibly disturbed.
For a very clear example see:
Sacha Kocsis, Boris Braverman, Sylvain Ravets, Martin J. Stevens, Richard P. Mirin, L. Krister Shalm, Aephraim M. Steinberg, Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer, Science 332, 1170 (2011); DOI: 10.1126/science.1202218
I found an interesting comment about the paper you mentioned.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51939410_Comment_on_Observing_the_Average_Trajectories_of_Single_Photons_in_aTwo-Slit_Interferometer
Article Comment on "Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Pho...
I think that if there are no trajectories (as QM teaches but offers some very very foggy ideas which in fact mean nothing) the obvious alternative one has is that:
1. after leaving the source the particle vanishes into fogy probability (it does not exist anymore)
2. at the receiver all the fog is instanly gathered together with absolutely no trace whatsoever.
Dear, Sofia
I will read your paper with great interest. It sounds good if you give an experimental criterion to judge which theory is correct.
Best wish
Sofia, can you tell what replaces the trajectories? And keeps the SR?
Ilian, my friend,
The standard QM holds that we don't have particles, just wave-packets. And when a wave-packet lands on a photographic plate, there occurs collapse, and we get just a point instead of a whole region as wide as the wave-packet.
As to the movement of the wave-packet, it should be compatible with SR if it is a solution of the relativistic QM, e.g. of Dirac's equation.
But I am not sure whether I understood your question, so, please let me know.
Best regards!
Sofia, QM says that when observed the particles do exist. When firing an electron, it is localized on the tip. It is not a wave. Than they suddenly turn into nothing - wave packets of probability. This is absolutely against all laws of conservation and SR.
For me QM is a mathematical tool to explain results, but not a real physical theory.
So I am inclined to believe in the experiment of Kocish and the weak measurements. Even if these are mean trajectories they dont appear from nothing.
You try to reject trajectories but then the particle (see above) must jump superluminally from point to point.
It is impossible to explain the photoeffect with wave theories. The collapse is more than superluminal.
@Ilian Peruhov. "Impossible" provided that you adhere to the anti-transactionnal postulates. So we do not.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/15postulates.pdf
updated version of what is on researchgate.net :
Fifteen surreptitious, copenhaguist and corpuscularist postulates we do not more accept.
http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/15postulates.pdf
@ Jacques Lavau
In a previous tread I asked you to explain DSE from point of view of TT. You did not. Do you understand TT? Please be so kind and explain the photoeffect on a working level if you can. I really want to understand the idea but I dont see how it makes sense.
I imagine TT for PE like the source sends a real wave. The electron has sent before another wave. They match somehow (shake hands) and the photon is delivered. But why this electron, where is the shake hands event and why, how this could happen in whole space area at once?
@Ilian Peruhov. There is not yet a translation of the book into english.
If you read french, you have all at hand.
I do not understand your sigle "PE", nor your "TT".
The Aharonov-Bohm type of interference is discussed at page 14/325.
The postulate you need is :
An individual wave has one emitter, and one absorber.
Every photon has an absorber.
A photon is a successful transaction between three partners: an emitter, an absorber, and the space or optical devices between them. This transaction transfers by electromagnetic means, a quantum of looping h, and an energy-momentum that depends on the respective frames of the emitter and the absorber.
We distinguish the macro-time of macro-systems such as the laboratory, from the micro-times where dwell all the gropings of broglian waves from which emerge the successful transactions. The macro-time is a statistical emergence, and it flows the same way as the entropy, a statistical emergence too. It has no causal properties in microphysics.
And the properties of the absorber have to be described, instead of being replaced by hasty slogans. The quantic constraints on the absorber cannot be neglected.
Without being conscious of his breakthrough, Louis de Brogle gave in 1923 the first form of the law of the Dirac-de-Broglie ground noise. In 1923, the speed of the phase was infinite in the frame of the electron. Since 1928, we know it is both luminic and anti-luminic.
So the Dirac-de-Broglie ground noise is bidirectionnal in all the micro-times.
If you try to explain with three sentences I would bother to read it in more detail. You understand that one does not go to read huge books if not at least slightly interested. TT means transactionat theory and PE photoeffect. Now show with three sentences how does PE happen in TT.
Is the receiver (electron) predetermined and by whom. How does an EM wave meet another EM(?) wave which acts like a lense to focus it in the chosen electron.
In theory of graphs, any arc joins two apex.
In the real world too, any photon, any flying quantic particle joins two apex : one emitting reaction and one absorbing reaction.
Like it or hate it, it is in the definition above.
The three partners, emitter, absorber and the space and optical devices in-between have physical properties that cannot be replaced by any hasty slogan.
An interesting case is with polarisers in-between, that modulate the impedance of the path. The biggest the impedance, the less likely will occur the transaction.
When an emitter emits a wave - it is in many cases spherical, and generally a part of it is heading toward the receiver, but a bigger part is heading away. So I can understand that some part of the emitter's wave can meet and be covered by the receiver's wave, and it may be accepted that by some unknown rules to force that part to 'shake hands' or whatsoever and end in the receiver. But what happens to part that is heading away and will never have contact with receivers wave? This is exactly the collapse paradox lurking again. It can not be resolved in Transactional Theory!!
Peruhov, if you drag with yourself so many superfluous luggage, your case is hopeless.
Excepted for submarine explosions, no wave has the spherical symmetry.
Never a photon could have a spherical symmetry.
You have already forgotten the paper from Albert Einstein, in 1916 and 1917 : On the quantum theory of radiation.
He proves that a photon is always perfectly directionnal, is a unidimensionnal phenomenon, so it carries the momentum h.nu/c.
But the emitter, an atom is far too small to be a directionnal antenna. Only the couple emitter-absorber can provide this directivity.
You are driven haywire by Cramer, who confused the transaction with the synchronous transfer. The synchronous transfer does not tell why this transaction occured, among all you may imagine.
Cramer did not know the theorem of harmony of phases by Louis de Broglie (1923), so he never conceptualized the broglian ground noise, where most virtual transaction abort, and some successful emerge.
Have you seen droplets of rain falling in water basin? What is the shape of the waves? In QM this is also the case: read the paper of Gamov about alpha particles.
The paper of Einstein is not about waves, but of course about the corpuscular nature of particles. Everyone knows that he resurrected the photon corpuscules of Newton, which you dont like so much but which you are build from. (if you are build from waves how do you stay compact - the waves spread constantly). For me there are not only particles but also some kind of de Broglie waves, which govern their behaviour when on flight.
I really thought you are follower of Cramer and this is what I know about his TT. I advise you to present you theory very shortly (1-2) pages and publish it on RG for the people to evaluate. Try to show how it explains DSE and and photo effect, and that's enough.
Again you have used the postulate "There are no absorbers, but artillery of corpuscles".
De Broglie, Schrödinger next have proved that atomic edifices are stationnary electronic waves. Molecules too, etc.
Napoleon berated Pierre Siméon de Laplace : "In your Système du Monde, you do not speak about god.
- Majesty, I had no need of that hypothesis !"
We have no use of any corpuscular hypothesis.
Article Fifteen surreptitious, copenhaguist and corpuscularist postu...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics