I welcome the conversation Georgina. Let's explore together this intellectual landscape. I already think we may have more in common than it appears. First, I completely agree with your views about the limitations of mathematical models of physics. You write,

"Although mathematics is important to physics it is useful as a tool and a precise language. It does not by itself give correct...

view entire post

I welcome the conversation Georgina. Let's explore together this intellectual landscape. I already think we may have more in common than it appears. First, I completely agree with your views about the limitations of mathematical models of physics. You write,

"Although mathematics is important to physics it is useful as a tool and a precise language. It does not by itself give correct understanding of greater meaning."

I can't agree with you more! I too see mathematics as a precise language of "objective reason". You also say,

" ... it is always the interpretation that leads to understanding not just the calculation".

Perfect! I agree! I would go one step further and call for a 'physical explanation' to all physical phenomena. What gets me about so much of modern physics is that although the mathematical formalism yields so many impressive results, there are no 'physical explanations' to these that make sense. For example, look up explanations for the double-slit experiment in Wikipedia. Very counter-intuitive and plain bizarre. From many path trajectories that travel to the edge of the Universe before the electron strikes the detection screen, to many parallel worlds, to particles with conscience and free will able to play games with our minds, etc.

In a very short note "A Plausible Explanation to the Double-slit Experiment" I propose a simple 'physical explanation' to this result that makes sense. I wont go into details about it here just because I like you (and others) to read it. In another equally short note, based on some central ideas in the previous cited paper, I am able to derive Planck's Law for blackbody radiation without using energy quanta and with continuous processes. This very simple derivation shows that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy measurement.

The essence of Physics is 'measurement'. We see this in every physical quantity that carries measurement units with it. In mathematics all quantities can be considered pure, with no reference to anything relating to the world. That's what makes math so very different from physics. If we forget that, then mathematical models can take on a life of their own and lead us to physical absurdities. We cannot know 'what is' even using mathematics. But this is what I believe many physicist are theoretically seeking to do in formulating Universal Laws that somehow capture the whole Truth about 'what was', 'what is' and 'what will be'. We can only take 'measurements' and make 'observations' (a form of measurement) of 'what is'. This is somewhat analogous to not really 'knowing someone' by observing their behavior and taking measure of their attributes.

In another short paper, "The Interaction of Measurement", I show that 'measurement' of a physical quantity does not equate with the 'quantity itself'. So we're stuck. We can only 'measure' reality but our 'measurements' do not truly reveal what reality really is! But I think there is a way out of this 'rabbit's hole'. I believe that a Mathematical Foundation of Physics that establishes Basic Law as mathematical identities (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement may provide such an out from this endless search for Universal Law.

You further say,

" ... it is possible to comprehend the existence of a world separate from experience ... "

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Certainly the 'supernatural' may be such a world which few may comprehend. So is the world of abstract mathematics. So it's impossible to argue for or against this. But if you are referring to this common place ordinary world, how do you know your comprehension of it is correct unless it is confluent and consistent with our experience of it?

I know! I talk too much! Sorry ...

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Georgina, you write

"I am talking of existential material reality, the real stuff that exists, even though it is not observable."

Yes! I agree! We must not confuse our 'observations' and our 'measurements' of the World (even our 'understanding', since this is also a form of 'measurement') as the World Is in itself (independent of our 'observations' when we are not looking,...

view entire post

Dear Georgina, you write

"I am talking of existential material reality, the real stuff that exists, even though it is not observable."

Yes! I agree! We must not confuse our 'observations' and our 'measurements' of the World (even our 'understanding', since this is also a form of 'measurement') as the World Is in itself (independent of our 'observations' when we are not looking, prodding or measuring it). The point that I make in many of my papers is that our 'measurement' of a physical quantity is different from the quantity itself (see The Interaction of Measurement). In fact, as I show in that paper, we cannot 'know' what that quantity is (in the sense of it as a function of time). Furthermore, a physical quantity, though existing, is not 'manifested' (measured) unless local equilibrium conditions occur and a minimum threshold is reached.

We see this in so many of all our other experiences in life that to me this is a natural intuitive truism! This is a key idea in my Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment. Radiated energy on the detection screen accumulates until a minimum threshold is reached causing it to 'pop' (much like a 'popcorn' seed when enough heat energy is absorbed). The other key idea that together helps explain the double-slit experiment is that the 'electron emitted' is not the same as the 'electron detected'. These are two separate (but related) 'events'.

Finally on this point, let me just say that my call for 'Physical Realism' is that we need to have theory that is confluent with our live, and not pitting us against our 'experience' of reality. This may not be a mathematical or even a Physics requirement, but it is a 'human requirement'. Physics cannot portent to explain the Universe while leaving our understanding of our selves and of our reality in shambles. I am hinting at an 'anthropic principle' to physics here. Not so much that the Universe is so constituted that it makes life possible (although that is probably true) but that our understanding of the Universe must be such that is confluent with life -- mathematical formalism aside, since such formalism can be pushed by strong intellects to any far out 'senseless' limits.

As for your hesitation,

"If a good mathematician tells me that what you are doing is good mathematically I will take into account that judgment"

The main purely mathematical results, separate of the Physics that I derive from these, are found in A 'Planck-like' Characterization of Exponential Functions. These results have been read and reviewed by a good number of mathematicians. Foremost of these is Professor Sagun Chanillo of Rutgers University, a world renowned mathematician. The mathematics is simple and free of controversy in themselves. Where the real controversy lies is with physicists that just refuse to accept these results because they show that the 'emperor has no clothes'!

Sincerely,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Hello James, good to hear from you again. I am pleased that you have been reading my posts and even more pleased of the dialog that you seek. Yes, I have thought a lot about intelligence and mind and life and physics and art and politics and anything else that pertains to human being. It's not an exaggeration to say that I have thought of such things all my life. No big deal, since this is no...

view entire post

Hello James, good to hear from you again. I am pleased that you have been reading my posts and even more pleased of the dialog that you seek. Yes, I have thought a lot about intelligence and mind and life and physics and art and politics and anything else that pertains to human being. It's not an exaggeration to say that I have thought of such things all my life. No big deal, since this is no different than just breathing or walking. We all do it. I suspect dogs may also do it and either they don't know they are doing it or we don't know they are doing it! Maybe atoms do it! In all instances, we wont know unless we speak their language! And that's the rub. Mechanics may tell us what we want to hear, but may not be telling us 'their story'. And mathematics is no more than a writing tool. It is used to write this story but cannot write this story. QM is saying a lot but no one knows what it is saying! I have a strong intuition that it is saying a lot about our minds!

I must show some discipline at this point! I remember your first post to me encouraging me to participate in this forum but to be brief and clear. So to the 'brief' part (you tell me about the 'clear' part...)

Everything that we know, we know through our minds. Whether there is a universe independent of our minds is a mute point. You can assume either possibilities and you will be equally right and equally wrong. So I start with mind. What ever we know about the universe of necessity must have 'mind's imprint'! To keep on formulating mathematical models of the universe and not account for this reality is to account for no reality. The mechanical model of the universe has long reached its empirical limits. It describes a universe out of mind that does not reflect mind. On this point we are in complete agreement.

What we do know about the world comes from our 'measurements' and our 'observations' and our 'understanding' of it. These are all essentially the same. They involve an interaction between 'observer and observed' and an equilibrium (symmetry!) between the two. These is also how conscientiousness and intelligent life evolve.

For anything to exist it needs time. Nothing can exist outside of time. When an entity runs out of time, it disappears. For an object to be observed, the interaction between the object and the observer must attain an equilibrium. The equilibrium between object and observer provides this time. This equilibrium also results in a minimum manifestation of the object. In my note on Planck's Law I show that h is the 'minimum accumulation of energy' that can be manifested and the time needed for this manifestation of energy is h/kT.

In my derivations the quantity 'accumulation of energy' comes up very naturally. Planck's constant h is such a quantity, though a constant. If we take this quantity (the time integral of energy) as the 'primary physis', it is possible to derive Basic Law and to give an interesting interpretation of the Schroedinger equation. This 'prime physis' seems to play the role of 'being' and the wave-function is giving the space-time distribution of 'being'. I better stop. This can be misunderstood!

Constantinos

view post as summary

James, you write

"You see a time delay after the arrival of the wave and the subsequent reaction of an electron on the screen."

So that there is no misunderstanding. The time delay does not directly correlate to the emission of 'the' electron and the detection of 'some' electron after 'the electron wave' radiates the screen. As each such wave radiates the screen, a build-up of...

view entire post

James, you write

"You see a time delay after the arrival of the wave and the subsequent reaction of an electron on the screen."

So that there is no misunderstanding. The time delay does not directly correlate to the emission of 'the' electron and the detection of 'some' electron after 'the electron wave' radiates the screen. As each such wave radiates the screen, a build-up of 'accumulated energy' on the entire screen occurs (more in some areas than in other, according to the interference pattern). When at some point on the screen that 'accumulated energy' reaches a threshold, an electron will be detected. But this is the result of not just one 'electron wave' acting on the screen but all previous such waves radiating the screen and resulting in the 'accumulation of energy'. The exact location when the 'next electron' will be detected is random (since this depends on local equilibrium conditions that just cannot be known). As is also the time between electron detections. In my paper I provide a link to the video clip of the Tonomura 1989 experiment that shows 'electron dots' filling the screen. If you look closely, not only is the 'next place' random, but the 'time between' is also random and not uniform (as you would expect if we have a 'particle trajectory').

The part in your quote above that particularly troubles me is 'subsequent reaction of an electron'. This seems to imply a direct connection between a specific electron firing and a 'subsequent' detection of some electron, even with a time delay. That's not what I mean! To me the 'emission of an electron' and the 'detection of an electron' are two separate (but related) 'events'. There are no 'trajectories' between these two electrons, and there are no 'time delays' due to any such trajectories and various paths of travel. Nor is there a 'reaction time delay' for an electron to be detected. Simply, once locally at a point the 'accumulated energy' reaches a minimal threshold you get detection of that electron. No more no less.

If you follow my analogy to 'heat' and 'popcorn' you will come closer to the explanation I am describing. The screen becomes the pan while the firing of the electrons becomes the flame heating the pan. The detection on the screen of an electron is the popping of a seed at some point on the pan. Since the electron beam is reduced to single electron emission, this is a little like turning the flame off and on in discrete bursts of heat. But over time, and once the pan heats up enough, popcorn will start popping. Where in the pan the 'next pop' will occur, or what the time interval for the next pop is, are random (more or less within certain limits).

You ask,

"What do you have to say about the photoelectric effect?"

Read my paper The Photoelectric Effect without Photons!

I welcome the discussion! Thank you for participating.

Constantinos

view post as summary

Hello James,

I truly appreciate your participation in this conversation. Spot reading some of your previews posts, especially those between you and Ian Durham, I have the impression that we may have many views in common that need further exploration and elaboration. We both agree that something went wrong in the development of modern physics and we need to rethink and reformulate some...

view entire post

Hello James,

I truly appreciate your participation in this conversation. Spot reading some of your previews posts, especially those between you and Ian Durham, I have the impression that we may have many views in common that need further exploration and elaboration. We both agree that something went wrong in the development of modern physics and we need to rethink and reformulate some foundational questions to get us back to 'Physical Realism'. This is what I am seeking, 'physical explanations that make sense'. These are based on a result that accidentally I stumbled on some ten years ago and now develop through a series of short papers.

The 'best explanation' is the one that coveys the 'right meaning'. It is not necessarily the one of the author, though certainly the author has a greater interest in this being so. A sustained Q&A is needed to revise and polish the description of an idea so that its true meaning is understood. What usually gets in the way is the previous views and mind set of the audience. If I seemed a little too meticulous in the 'finer points' of your last response re: the double-slit experiment, is because I see this explanation as the key to comprehending my other results in my other papers.

My paper 'Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment' establishes the notion of 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'. It also shows the 'sensible connection' between classical and quantum physics, between continuity and discreteness: 'globally energy propagates continuously but locally it interacts discretely'.

This view resolves the 'wave-particle dilemma' and the 'measurement problem' with the collapse of the wave function. Much of the 'quantum weirdness' that has come to exemplify modern theoretical physics is eliminated through this view. This view also 'makes sensible' many previous interpretations of QM and especially the 'probabilistic interpretation'. So, without disputing the mathematical formalism and derivations of QM, this view provides a road to 'Physical Realism' that can put all of us, professional and layman alike, at ease that Reality is not at odds with our Experience.

Furthermore, the view that I take in my short papers, has lead to some interesting results. We can derive Planck's Formulas using continuous processes and not needing energy quanta, and prove that 'Planck's Formula is an Exact Mathematical Identity' that describes the interaction of energy. This view leads to a new understanding and interpretation of Planck's constant as a minimal 'accumulation of energy' that can be manifested and gives a plausible explanation why Planck's constant exists. This view also has lead to an interpretation of Schroedinger's equation and interprets the wave-function as giving the space-time distribution of the 'accumulation of energy'. It has also lead to a non-thermodynamic definition of the temperature of radiation and an explanation of the photoelectric effect without using photons.

James, I am painfully aware that many of my arguments in my papers may contain 'diction and grammar' errors in Physics that would make some physicists cringe. I apologize for this in advance. I am not a physicist, so the language that I use may get in the way of the understanding of the underlying ideas. But the basic results I believe to be true. I am convinced of this because these results draw from so much of our sensible experience. Discussions like we are having are so important to get the language right and make these results more acceptable to physicists. I deeply appreciate your comments and input James.

Now, to answer your question: I tried to communicate with Tonomura regarding exactly such details of his 'single electron emission' double-slit experiment but I got no response. My sense is that the apparatus used may need to first 'warm up' before the actual experiment is done. In that case, the 'first detected' electron may follow soon after the 'first emitted' electron. Of course, in my view these are two different and separate 'events'.

I too have a series of questions I would like answered through experiments. What strikes me particularly interesting is the randomness of the detected electrons. I would like to know if the time interval between detections is ever smaller or ever larger than the fixed interval between emissions of electrons. If so, it would seem to me this would show that the 'emitted electron' is not the same as the 'detected electron'. This certainly will help confirm my explanation of this experiment and the notion of 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy'.

P.S. In some previous discussions with some physicists over this, the Uncertainty Principle was brought up as an explanation for this 'emission/detection' time discrepancy. But this only leads us back to more 'weirdness' with many possible trajectory paths, some of which travel to the ends of the Universe before the electron strikes the screen, etc. Is it possible to get back to 'Physical Realism'?

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your kind feedback and answer.

My idea that, for every electron send out towards the screen there had to be only one light-spot, goes back to the very early years of QM. Max Planck's assistent spend nights over nights to count! tousands of those light-spots and archieved their angle of impact (surely, he didn't send the emitted...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your kind feedback and answer.

My idea that, for every electron send out towards the screen there had to be only one light-spot, goes back to the very early years of QM. Max Planck's assistent spend nights over nights to count! tousands of those light-spots and archieved their angle of impact (surely, he didn't send the emitted energy-portions through a double-slit).

I think, to solve the question wether there is a time-delay greater than predicted by the Heisenberg's uncertainty between the emission of an electron plus the relativistic time needed to arrive at the screen and the popping-up of some light-spot there - i think we would urgently need the help of the experts, members and experimenters here at fqxi. It would be a great pleasure if some really designated and sophisticated QM-Experimenter would help us here, particularly because such double-slit-experiments have been made tousands of times all over the world in the last few decades.

I assume that due to the uncertainty of time and energy one cannot know exactly the time-point of emission - because the energy of an electron is fixed. Yes, that's weired! In my last post at "the limits of mathematics" in the forum i assumed that the screen is overall at the same energy-level. That would mean that the first light-spot must hit the screen exactly in the maxima of the interference-pattern (horizontally... but vertically?). If there isn't such an overall same enery-level over the screen, it seems to me, that due to your explanation, if we dim the electron-source to emit only one electron, say, per 10 seconds, we should observe in some cases more than one light-spot simultaniously during the impact - due to randomly identical energy-levels at more points all over the screen. So please, experts here, please - help to clarify this - if possible.

Your explanation is quite classical, means mechanical, trying to keep the quanta within the measurement-process and leave it away when it comes to physical interpretations. My next question would be about the current model of the atom, quantum-mechanically. Unfortunately i am not an expert on this subject, but my question would be, if your theory can also explain the behaviour of atoms and the results of Boltzmann, Einstein, Bohr and others.

My next question is possibly more subtle, concerning once more the double-slit-experiment (with photons or electrons): In your explanation, the emitted "particle" is thought of as a wave. In the classical double-slit-experiment, this wave must pass the double-slit and doing so, must interact with the atoms of the slits. This would result in a different interference-pattern, because the interaction with the slits leaves energy of the passing wave there. Surely one can argue, that the accumulated interference-pattern on the screen would be - in approximation - the classical interference-pattern that we would see if we emitted a light-beam. Maybe that's an explanation why there are light-spots in areas at the screen, where they aren't allowed to be (due to the interference-pattern's probability-distribution - totally destructive interference).

I hope, there are some experts here who could clarify those questions or other participants who have access to papers about significant double-slit-experiments.

Stefan

view post as summary

Greetings Stefan,

You raise many relevant points. Forgive me if I don't address directly some of them in this post. Perhaps in subsequent posts we can explore these further.

You write,

"...for every electron send out towards the screen there had to be only one light-spot, goes back to the very early years of QM."

I am not sure I understand the research that you...

view entire post

Greetings Stefan,

You raise many relevant points. Forgive me if I don't address directly some of them in this post. Perhaps in subsequent posts we can explore these further.

You write,

"...for every electron send out towards the screen there had to be only one light-spot, goes back to the very early years of QM."

I am not sure I understand the research that you say Planck did back 100 years ago with 'single electron emission' since the first such double-slit experiment with single electron emissions was by Tonomura in 1989. Earlier than that I don't believe the technology permitted 'single electron emissions'. Please clarify if I am wrong.

As to your several other points,

Local conditions at the detection screen determine the manifestation of energy (somewhat analogous to lightning strikes). These conditions we just do not know. But what we do know is that certain parts of the screen will be more radiated than others, according to the interference pattern. Therefore, the probability that a 'lightning' occurs at those parts is higher.

Very simply, I accept that the interference pattern we see when the light is bright is the same interference pattern when the light is dim and even when the light is very very dim and the interference pattern is therefore invisible to us. This attitude I call 'physical realism'. (What we see as 'dots' may perhaps be aberrations due to the apparatus preparation and setup used to make the invisible visible. Just a thought!)

I too have puzzled about the possibility of near-simultaneous 'light spots' on the detection screen. Admittedly, there is much that I don't know concerning the Tonomura experiment, and other such experiments. So there is a high degree of speculation to what I propose. But this explanation does bring us closer to some 'physical realism' with explanations that 'make sense' and are confluent with our experience. Contrast this to the many others offered!

I list below the main parts to my explanation. I welcome a discussion of each of them.

1) It is true that central point in my argument is that 'the electron emitted is not the same as the electron detected'. There is no trajectory that links these two 'events'. (this alone makes this explanation non-mechanical).

2) Another part to my argument is that we have: 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'. That before energy can be observed or measured energy first accumulates til local equilibrium is reached and so a necessary minimum threshold is attained. In another very short paper I used this idea to mathematically derive Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation and prove that it is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy.

3) Globally energy propagates continuously as a wave but locally interacts discretely. This combines the 'classical view' with the 'quantum view'. It provides a more 'physical meaning' to 'energy quanta' as being the 'equal size sips' made when energy interacts.

Constantinos

view post as summary

Breaking Views!

Please read and comment!

Quoting from the article The Crystallizing Universe by Kate Becker, describing the enigmas of the double-slit experiment,

Quote:

"Imagine a laser shooting photons toward a screen. Between the laser and the screen is a thin wall with two tiny slits in it. (This is an old physics workhorse called the...

view entire post

Breaking Views!

Please read and comment!

Quoting from the article The Crystallizing Universe by Kate Becker, describing the enigmas of the double-slit experiment,

Quote:

"Imagine a laser shooting photons toward a screen. Between the laser and the screen is a thin wall with two tiny slits in it. (This is an old physics workhorse called the double-slit experiment.) Gaze at the screen and you'll see an interference pattern generated by the light diffracting off the two slits and interfering on the other side. From this, you'd conclude that light must be a wave, flowing through space like a ripple through the ocean.

Now imagine that you can roll up the screen like a window shade. Behind it, you've placed two detectors-one lined up with each slit-that can register individual photons. When you now repeat the experiment without the screen, the detectors tell you that the photons are sailing straight through the slits like bullets, with no hint that an interference pattern could ever have been produced. From this experiment, you'd conclude that light must be a particle.

Could it be that light somehow "knows" what kind of experiment it is entering, and adjusts its behavior accordingly? It seems impossible, but experiment after experiment shows that if you're looking for a wave, light will act like a wave. Seek a particle, and light will be every inch a particle. Confused? So were quantum physicists.

To test the limits of this experiment, venerable physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed playing a little trick on the photons. Why not wait to decide whether to do a "wave measurement" or a "particle measurement" until after the photons have already been through the slits and-presumably-have already picked whether to behave as particles or waves? This delayed-choice experiment was actually performed in 2006, and it proved that you can't fool photons. The light still behaved as a particle to the detectors and a wave to the screen"

The explanation is simple! What we are observing is not the nature of light (wave or particle) but the nature of the apparatus used for the experiment. We observe what the apparatus is designed by us to tell us! This is no less different than people seeing what they are looking for. Our instruments may be defining 'reality' in other ways as well.

End of quote.

In my short paper A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment, I am able to explain the Tonomura 1989 'single electron emission' double-slit experiment using the following principles:

1)The 'electron emitted' is not the same as the 'electron detected'. These are two different and separate (though related) 'events'. There is no 'trajectory' connecting the two.

2)Globally energy propagates continuously as a wave while locally energy interacts discretely, when local equilibrium conditions are attained.

3)We have 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'.

Using these same principles it is also possible to derive Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation and prove that it is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy.

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

you write

"The most logical explanation is that 'we are finding what we are looking for'! The instruments we use are so designed by us to 'record particles' or to 'record waves'. They take the same input (energy) and record it in the manner that they are designed to do. Why should it surprise us if that's what we find when we use them? To think otherwise is to...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

you write

"The most logical explanation is that 'we are finding what we are looking for'! The instruments we use are so designed by us to 'record particles' or to 'record waves'. They take the same input (energy) and record it in the manner that they are designed to do. Why should it surprise us if that's what we find when we use them? To think otherwise is to think that nature is playing games with us."

Almost all our instruments that act as detectors (manipulators) in a QM-"wave-particle"-experiment are designed due to the assumptions of the underlying theory - means QM & Heisenberg's uncertainty, quantum optics etc.

If one wants to explain why the underlying assumptions/axioms of a theory like QM are partly false, one had to design an alternative experiment that delivers different outcomes than QM predicts. For example if it would be true that an energetical interference wave (with the energy of a quanta distributed in the well-known probability-pattern) propagates further after it left the double-slit, it should be the case that (for every instant of the single-"particle"-experiment), at the screen there should be a probability greater zero to detect more than one “impact” (almost simultaneously and per one instant of the experiment). This could be tested or even has been tested already. For the case that the result of such experiment is in accordance to what we know about QM today - namely if the probability-wave of the particle in question collapses (instantly!) - one and only one impact is detected at the screen - for this case you had to explain in your theoretic framework *why* *always* only one light-flash is observed.

One could explain via Heisenberg's uncertainty why a particle goes through both slits if the slits are in the limits of the particles wavelength. Because the momentum of the particle at the axis orthogonal to the slits is zero, the uncertainty of its position at this axis must be nearly maximal. Here we have a superposition of position. But: The delayed-choice-experiments, i think, do effort that there is a complicated entanglement of the whole experimental setup at the very start of any experimental instant. Entanglement isn't defined in space (it is non-local), so every classical picture to grasp this and other experiments don't work properly, but have to come into conflict with observation!

If you would be right, that "'we are finding what we are looking for'", we should be able to design an apparatus to detect which-way-information and interference in an experiment at the same instant. By the way: A photo-plate in a double-slit experiment detects both, an interference pattern and single dots ("particles"). But for every dot, one cannot say which slit it has passed - or if it has passed both. In your interpretation, the dot is an independent phenomena, caused by accumulation of energy locally. So there should be a probability greater than zero to get the which-way-detectors in that experiment to click both at one instant of the experiment. But that was - surely - never observed, because it would be at odds with the theoretical axioms, compressed into this special setup of experiment. Again, if those axioms would be partly false or incomplete, you had to explain with your picture of energetic waves why the scenario of simultaneous clicks in the mentioned detectors cannot happen in this experiment (and don't forget the photo-plate!). You only could explain this by the assumption that the two detectors have inverted energy levels, so if the one detector is ready to click (filled with enough energy), the other isn’t and vice versa – and that for all those experiments all over the world. This would mean, nature is indeed playing games with us with detectors and photo-plates and so on! If THIS would be indeed the case, one had to offer a mechanism (other than Heisenberg’s uncertainty or complementary), to explain the observed mutually exclusive behaviour of the detectors and *why* they don't click *alternately*. Maybe you find one, i don’t know. The best i know is entanglement with decoherence to come to an end with all of those puzzles.

Prof. Dr. Harry Paul has written a very useful book about photons. Its called "Potons - an introduction into quantum optics", Teubner Studienbücher, sec. Edition, 1999, Stuttgart, Leipzig, Germany (unfortunately only in german language). In this book he treats exactly your assumption of the accumulation of energy. He calculates the photoelectric effect on the basis of your assumptions and ends up in a very high contradiction to the experimental data (pp. 70 ff.).

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, always delighted to hear from you!

It's hard enough to explain my own views on this experiment, let alone explain the accumulated volumes of work in physics over the past 100 years. I will not try. It is fair to say, however, that whereas the mathematical formalism of QM is impressive and provides good positive results, the 'physical explanations' of QM present a view of our...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, always delighted to hear from you!

It's hard enough to explain my own views on this experiment, let alone explain the accumulated volumes of work in physics over the past 100 years. I will not try. It is fair to say, however, that whereas the mathematical formalism of QM is impressive and provides good positive results, the 'physical explanations' of QM present a view of our universe which is contrary to our experience. Simply put, QM lacks 'physical realism'. In the passage from the article by Kate Becker I quoted, photons are given free will and conscience awareness to 'know' which way to behave and trick us. Without disputing the mathematical formalism, I look at the experimental results and let the 'natural mind' decide on the logic of the conclusions. Here is what I see:

1) A source of radiation (photons or electrons) which is fixed and the same for all occasions.

2) An inert barrier with two slits which is also fixed and the same for all occasions.

3) Detector A designed to detect radiation as particles (photons or electrons)

Detector B designed to detect radiation as waves (photons or electrons)

4) For any and all double-slit experiments regardless of design,

a) Using detector A we detect 'particles' (photons or electrons)

b) Using detector B we detect 'waves' (photons or electrons)

So what are we to logically conclude from this?

1.The QM 'explanation': radiation, having 'knowledge' of how it is about to be detected, changes its behavior. For detector A it becomes 'particle' while for detector B it becomes 'wave'

2.Alternative explanation: For the same radiation, detector A will detect 'particles' (photons or electron) by design, while detector B will detect 'waves' by design.

To my 'natural mind', conclusion 2 makes more sense. It makes sense to adhere to 'physical realism' and see the radiation emitted at the source being independent of the detector used and being the same for both detectors. No 'spooky action at a distance' as Einstein complained of QM. So if detector A finds 'particles' while detector B finds 'waves', it's not because the nature of light changes from 'particles' to 'waves' depending on which detector we use. Rather, the detectors used are so designed to 'see particles' or 'see waves'.

If we were to suspend 'physical realism' and assume that our instruments can change and affect the way nature works, that they are not the 'objective observer' but have 'subjective will' and can determine how nature is to behave, then we could be putting ourselves on a very slippery logical slope. We could be falling into a black hole of quantum weirdness! All of our scientific knowledge depends on an objective consistent physical reality independent of us or our instruments. Conclusion 1 above is contrary to this principle. If we suspend 'physical realism' we could also be lead to believe that the lady sewn in half by the magician's saw is a fact. Could QM be such a mathematical magician?

You write,

(quote:) "Almost all our instruments that act as detectors (manipulators) in a QM-"wave-particle"-experiment are designed due to the assumptions of the underlying theory." (end of quote)

If we design instruments based on QM theory and we get results that the same QM theory predicts, could these be 'self-fulfilling prophecies'? That is 'we find in the results what we put in our theory'. Could this be is a 'tautology'? A is A. Just a thought! Interestingly, Planck's Formula (at the very foundations of QM) in fact is a mathematical tautology! That it is such an exact fit to the data should not surprise us in light of this. Please read my short derivation of Planck's Formula and share with me your thoughts.

You write,

quote:

"A photo-plate in a double-slit experiment detects both, an interference pattern and single dots ("particles")"

end of quote

I am not familiar how such detector is used in this experiment. How does it work? Is the 'interference pattern' recorded over time, being filled in by individual dots (like with the Tonomura experiment), or some other way? Does it record 'single emissions' or a beam? But if it is able to record both 'particle' and 'wave interference' at the same time doesn't this alone violate the complementarity principle? Or does it sometimes record 'dots' while over times it records 'wave' for the same experiment and this is not predictable? Or is this like old grainy photographic paper that records an image (wave) in a dot matrix fashion (particle)? Too many unknowns here for me to comment intelligently!

You further write, I quote

"[Dr Paul] treats exactly your assumption of the accumulation of energy. He calculates the photoelectric effect on the basis of your assumptions and ends up in a very high contradiction to the experimental data"

I can't really comment on how Dr Paul may have used 'accumulation of energy' in his work. My use of this is in the sense, 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy'. In my paper, The Photoelectric Effect without Photons, the results I get are in very good agreement with the 'un-doctored data' of Milikan. Please read and comment.

Stefan, I am as puzzled by these results as anyone. But my conviction that we need to introduce some 'physical realism' to the mathematical formalism of QM leads me on in this intellectual venture. With my limited background in physics I nonetheless get results that at a minimum call for deeper consideration. More competent physicists may be able to make greater and more profound connections than I can. I am pursuing this to the extend that the 'message' is delivered.

Best regards,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your feedback.

I fully understand your engagement for a deeper understanding/explanation of all these puzzles and highly appreciate this engagement - as well as your open-mindedness for contrary data / loopholes. Unfortunately i cannot comment on your derivation of Planck's formula because i am not familiar with the needed maths.

You...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your feedback.

I fully understand your engagement for a deeper understanding/explanation of all these puzzles and highly appreciate this engagement - as well as your open-mindedness for contrary data / loopholes. Unfortunately i cannot comment on your derivation of Planck's formula because i am not familiar with the needed maths.

You wrote

"If we design instruments based on QM theory and we get results that the same QM theory predicts, could these be 'self-fulfilling prophecies'? That is 'we find in the results what we put in our theory'."

I think, the answer is no and yes. First comes my 'no': QM theory was invented to explain / mirror mathematically yet unexplained data. The experimental results that Planck and many others found, where unexplained (black-body-radiation, photoelectric effect, constitution of the atom etc.). They where just there, collected - but unexplained. Then came the QM theory, which not only could mirror the data mathematically, but could also *predict* many more behaviour of nature/matter. I wouldn't label the confirmations of those predictions as self-fulfilling-prophecies, solely because they may be received through macroscopic instruments working on the basis of the laws of QM. The latter shows to me, that - at least - QM and reality aren't at odds with each other, but are consistent. So i would say 'yes' to your last sentence that 'we find in the results what we put in our theory' and say, don't forget that Planck and others put it in there, long before we built the first quantum mechanical device, but nonetheless this old theory generates more and more sophisticated, wonderfully working technologies (little wonders) on the grounds of mere prediction of that theory (most of the world's technology is designed by the predictions of QM and works wonderfully). If you think about theories in the past about nature and how they all could be falsified by their own "self-fulfilling-prophecies" that never happened (means, nature showed a behaviour that was in contradiction to those "prophecies"), you must confess that predictions and experimental proof are strong hints for every theory. Though many theories are self-consistent, that doesn't automatically mean that they are also consistent with the behaviour/laws of nature. The "problem" of QM is, that it is a theory that is thought of as the building block of *all* physical activities that ever can be found. Assuming that this is true, than it is no wonder, that in every instrument to perform QM-experiments, there is also "QM inside". So let's assume that QM is somewhat fundamental, and if something is fundamental, it has to be self-reinforcing, self-attesting in the area that is governed by it.

You wrote

“Or is this like old grainy photographic paper that records an image (wave) in a dot matrix fashion (particle)?”

When i mentioned the photo-plate, i thought of the earlier years of those experiments, i guess they used very fine-grained photographic layer. I don’t know what the photographic papers / layers are made of and if they are chemically different due to electron or photon experiments. But these are technical details. The important thing for me by mentioning those photo-plates was, that in such double-slit experiments with single particles per run (if no detectors are placed at the slits and no delayed-choice is made), the accumulation of impacts over time results in our well-known interference-pattern at those plates. So there is no ‘either-or’ that we as humans have designed, as suggested in your statement

“The instruments we use are so designed by us to 'record particles' or to 'record waves'”

Because nobody has designed the delayed-choice experiments with the knowledge that it indeed behaves either-or – even *after* the transition of the slit-plane!

I don’t know the many technologies / ways to record interference-patterns of single-particle experiments over time. But i am sure that it is technically possible and easy to decide wether your energetic interference-wave can force that photo-plate to show more than one impact per run or not. That was my intention by mentioning the photo-plate so insistently.

If the interference-wave of a particle’s possible paths would indeed be physically&energetically in space and time, then energy could be continously weakened ad infinitum, and i think we would get an infinity-problem and the weirdness of infinity is that you can explain all and nothing with it.

Concerning Harry Paul, i simply cite the mentioned key-sentences (without his calculations, because he wrote about this topic many pages that i can’t translate into english):

“Can it then probably be the case, that the light’s particle-nature is only simulated to us by the ‘detector’? … Has the electromagnetic field possibly as less a grained structure as a soup – that is eaten with the help of the used spoon in a portion-like manner – is ‘quantized’, as long as it is still on its dish? So is the classical electrodynamic finally correct however, when assigning to the light a space-like, continous distribution of energy and does the atom maybe just simply ‘collect’ as much energy, until it has collected the needed sum for the transition? Indeed, our experiences tell us that the classical picture is untenable. First, we want merely to approximate the ‘accumulation time’ that is needed for an atom, due to the classical theory, to absorb the energy hv from the radiation-field! (Therefore we use an argumention from Planck [PLA 66].)”

Ref.: Harry Paul, ‘Photons – an introduction into quantum optics, Teubner Studienbücher, Stuttgart, Leipzig, germany, 1999, p. 70.

view post as summary

Hello again Stefan. Much has been said but much more needs to be said. Thank you for this sustained dialog.

In my thinking about physics (and anything else pertaining to human understanding) I often draw from close analogies and metaphors with real-life experience and interactions among people. Certainly our minds do not work differently dealing with physical experiences than with life...

view entire post

Hello again Stefan. Much has been said but much more needs to be said. Thank you for this sustained dialog.

In my thinking about physics (and anything else pertaining to human understanding) I often draw from close analogies and metaphors with real-life experience and interactions among people. Certainly our minds do not work differently dealing with physical experiences than with life experiences. My provocative assertion in the past post that we 'find what we are looking for' is more convincing and better understood (and in the way I meant it to be understood) when looked at in this way. Mathematics aside (since through math alone we can never in principle 'know' the truth about nature but only the logical certainty of our mathematical derivations), how is our knowledge of the world possible? For me, the essence of Physics is 'measurement' ('observation' being a form of measurement).

How is it then that our mathematical derivations apply and can be consistent with our physical experiments? Mathematical modeling of the universe has its limitations and ultimately fails (see The Interaction of Measurement) since it does not 'capture the essence of physics' which is 'measurement'. Certainly it does not provide the answer why our model can be consistent with our universe other than that it is by fit and experimentation. I see only one way that this can be possible (that our mathematical derivations be consistent with our physical experiments). And that is if all Basic Law of Physics be mathematical identities (tautologies) that describe the interactions of measurement.

This I have done in a limited way. My derivation of Planck's Formula (please read it, the math involved is no more than basic calculus) shows that this Basic Law of physics is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy measurement. I am also able to derive as mathematical tautologies such basic laws as Conservation of Energy and Momentum and Newton's Second Law of Motion. All of these based on the same ideas. Moreover, Schroedinger's equation can be better understood as defining the space-time distribution of the energy of a system and the wave-function as giving the space-time distribution of the 'accumulation of energy' of the system. Such meanings I find more natural and more confluent with our physical experience. This gives some hope that perhaps QM can be also a theory that establishes 'interactions of measurement' as mathematical tautologies. This would certainly explain its accuracy and effectiveness as a theoretical tool with broad applications. Take this to be the background out of which my statements in my previous posts were drawn from.

But more to your specific points.

You ask, why the two detectors at the two slits do not both simultaneously click. You write,

(quote) So there should be a probability greater than zero to get the which-way-detectors in that experiment to click both at one instant of the experiment. But that was - surely - never observed, because it would be at odds with the theoretical axioms, compressed into this special setup of experiment. (end of quote)

Several points to make. First, the specifics to the experimental apparatus is not known and we can't leave out the possibility that this may determine some of this observed behavior. But leaving that aside.

The detectors placed at each of the two slits in a 'which-way' experiment that detect the passage of a photon or an electron stream through a slit surely must interact with that stream in order to make such detection. In a sense then they become 'blockers' in the stream flow and themselves interfere with the outcome of the experiment. This creates a delicate balance and instability through 'which slit' the flow will occur. If we think of the detector click as 'opening the gate' (as the click itself discharges the detector and unblocks that slit) then we shouldn't find it surprising that the flow going through predominantly that one slit will register at the screen as a 'particle hit', and the interference pattern otherwise there will disappear. Turn off these detectors and once again you get the interference pattern. Surely this also explains why there is a 'single click' at the detectors at the slits and not a simultaneous double click. This phenomenon can be observed in any dynamic delicate balance between two outcomes.

Further, you point to the fact that a 'simultaneous click' at the two detectors 'would be at odds with the theoretical axioms'. Yes! That's because the 'axioms' themselves take this behavior as a 'self-evident truth'. This again pointing to the fact that QM is 'made' to fit our observations, and so we shouldn't be surprise if our observations fit QM ! This is the essence of a 'tautology' in our theory. But here is another example of this rigged theoretical foundation.

You speak of the 'collapse' of the 'probability wave' (whatever that is) when a single 'dot' is detected as 'proving/explaining' that a single 'dot' must only appear! Again, rather circular reasoning since the collapse of the wave upon measurement is just that axiom of QM meant to 'fit' this behavior. Very simply, QM does not explain anything! It takes the unexplainable and turns it into a theory that produces the same unexplainable for its results. A tautology? In my view, yes!

The 'single flash' at the detection screen reminds me of 'single lightnings' during a thunderstorm. With such a huge wide sky (much larger than a screen) you would think that there should me many occurrences of a double-lightning strike. I have never seen it. Some very near-simultaneous strikes, but never simultaneous. Local conditions certainly account for a lightning strike, but once this occurs it may also be true that the lightning itself discharges the surrounding atmosphere so that no two can occur simultaneously in the near location. This is compatible with my explanation of the double-slit experiment.

Enough said for now. I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

Thank you also for the sustained dialog and be sure that i appreciate your efforts and like your pictures/analogies. Nonetheless, in my point of view, unfortunately every analogy comes to a natural, fundamental limit if i try to explain the fundamental level of our reality/nature by less fundamental levels of that same nature (leaving aside the question what really *is*...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

Thank you also for the sustained dialog and be sure that i appreciate your efforts and like your pictures/analogies. Nonetheless, in my point of view, unfortunately every analogy comes to a natural, fundamental limit if i try to explain the fundamental level of our reality/nature by less fundamental levels of that same nature (leaving aside the question what really *is* fundamental… and if there’s a hierarchy or a democracy or a self-similarity of reality in all directions…).

I thought about your assumption that all basic laws of physics may be identities (tautologies). I am not sure if i understand your label "identities" in the right way, (what is identical with what?), so i will concentrate myself on your tautology-approach.

Equations in maths could always be understood as tautologies, because at the left side of the equation, there is the same as at the right side of the equation (quantitatively). Surely not every such equation can describe and/or predict behaviour of nature. In equations that can, the quality chances due to time-dynamics of physical processes. In that light, i understand your term "identities" as the ‘same amount of energy at both sides of the equation’. That seems intuitively true, because of the conservation of energy. But some energy gets lost due to thermodynamical effects like for example friction etc.

But what about *inequalities* like the Bell's one? Due to common understanding of the interpretation of the Bell's inequalities there must exist some non-local element in QM (entanglement). A very interesting question for me is how one could interpret experiments with "entanglement" in terms of your pictures / analogies.

I now want to respond to your lines of reasoning a little bit more:

You wrote

"The detectors placed at each of the two slits in a 'which-way' experiment that detect the passage of a photon or an electron stream through a slit surely must interact with that stream in order to make such detection. In a sense then they become 'blockers' in the stream flow and themselves interfere with the outcome of the experiment. This creates a delicate balance and instability through 'which slit' the flow will occur."

In my examples i didn't ment those detectors that can possibly be placed at one or even two slits in the *slit-plane* directly. I must confess that, for me, it is hard to explain the results of a particle only choosing one path but not both (and with only *one* detector placed at one slit in the slit-plane), via Heisenberg's uncertainty. Maybe the position of the superposed particle at the slit where the detector is placed is forced to change its momentum, so that its uncertainty in position gets sharper and that results in the "random?" outcome of just one slit being used by the particle. But i don't know for sure.

Here again it is difficult for me to think of the wave as a real wave *in* space (and time). Because what about the case if the two which-way-detectors are placed not in the slit-plane but in the screen-plane (measurement-plane)? If doing so, we get which-way-information and therefore no more interference-information (surely you can perform such experiments in the manner that you get a "little" which-way-information and a "little" interference-information, but lets concentrate on the extreme cases). The density of impacts in that pure which-way-experiment does contradict the density of impacts that must occur at those places (where the detectors are positioned) - if an energetical, continous interference-wave indeed passed the two slits.

In the delayed-choice the situation gets again a bit more weird. Not because the densities i spoke of change. They remain the same, if sufficient many runs are made. This is so due to the probabilities of the underlying formalism - and surely likewise because nature behaves in this manner. But: If no detectors are placed in the slit-plane of the delayed-choice-experiment, no "'blockers' in the stream flow" are existent and hence no "delicate balance and instability through 'which slit' the flow will occur" is caused. Hence, in your interpretation there has to propagate an energetic interference-wave towards the detector-plane.

But nonetheless the same probability/density-results are obtained as in the case where the decision about *not* placing the detectors in the slit-plane is made *before the particle leaves the slit-plane behind*. Moreover, the density-results change again drastically, if one decides in the delayed-choice manner to measure which-way-information *after* a hypothetical energy-wave has left the slit-plane already behind.

You further wrote

"If we think of the detector click as 'opening the gate' (as the click itself discharges the detector and unblocks that slit) then we shouldn't find it surprising that the flow going through predominantly that one slit will register at the screen as a 'particle hit', and the interference pattern otherwise there will disappear. Turn off these detectors and once again you get the interference pattern. Surely this also explains why there is a 'single click' at the detectors at the slits and not a simultaneous double click."

You really don't need two detectors in the slit-plane. One detector is sufficient. If you have one detector and the detector doesn't click, you nonetheless have gained which-way-information. Because the particle went through the slit with no detector placed. Nonetheless at a photographic screen in the screen-plane, there is a 'particle-hit' registered. What you have done with your quoted explanation above, was to circularly (tautologically!) explain why there is always just one 'particle-hit' per run at the screen-plane and no simultaneous hits. You started with the experimental fact that always only one 'particle-hit' is detected behind the slits (in the measurement-plane) and concluded out of this that there must be also always a click of a detector in the slit-plane, to justify your assumption that 'the click itself discharges the detector and unblocks that slit', - therefore – we don’t ‘get the interference pattern’ - and - 'we shouldn't find it surprising that the flow going through predominantly that one slit will register at the screen as a 'particle hit'.

I myself wrote

“So there should be a probability greater than zero to get the which-way-detectors in that experiment to click both at one instant of the experiment. But that was - surely - never observed, because it would be at odds with the theoretical axioms, compressed into this special setup of experiment. Again, if those axioms would be partly false or incomplete, you had to explain with your picture of energetic waves why the scenario of simultaneous clicks in the mentioned detectors cannot happen in this experiment”

Please understand this statement as follows: Imagine a pure which-way-experiment, where there are two times two detectors monitoring the area where a particle can hit – and – there are no detectors in the slit-plane. So two detectors for the left slit in the measurement-plane, two detectors for the right slit in the measurement-plane (measurement-plane = the plane, where one could also position a photo-plate). All the four detectors now are independent from each other. The two detectors for the left slit are ordered in space to fill the entire area where the left slit-pattern could occur – in a half plus half manner. The same for the right slit’s detectors.

Imagine now a particle’s way through the left slit. According to your interpretation, it is an energetic wave whose energy is continously distributed over the wave-cone. It now should be the case that for the left slit, both detectors should fire simultaneously at some run of the experiment. Why this can’t be due to the axioms of the theory i explained above: Knowing the which-way-information of a ‘particle’s energetical trajectory’ is incompatible with simultaneous clicks, because otherwise we had to conclude that there are two energetical trajectories. OR we had to conclude that your theory is correct, but that can’t be the case because the example of just one detector in the slit-plane above shows that there’s always just one trajectory (trajectory in the sense of a helping-construct to exclude lines of reasoning), even if *no* detector clicks in this example. If there would be real energetical trajectories, correlated with weakened energy of the original source, simultaneous clicks should be possible if enough energy is accumulated at more than one of the left-slit trajectory’s detectors (we theoretically could ‘weaken’ also those detectors by placing more than two per slit). So, which-way-information should not be understood as evidence for real trajectories, but as an extention of Heisenberg’s uncertainty, and the latter in my opinion could be understood as a fundamental limit of a quanta’s information content (1 bit = yes or no). the question now is, is such kind of “information” defined in space and time?

Constantinos, you wrote

"You speak of the 'collapse' of the 'probability wave' (whatever that is) when a single 'dot' is detected as 'proving/explaining' that a single 'dot' must only appear!"

A single dot 'must' only appear, because that's the result of our many observations/measurements over the decades. It would be very curious, if that behaviour of nature would change and would leave - at least myself - more weird than before. But don't ask me, what a 'probability-wave' really is - i don't know, if it's just a mathematical mirror of nature's behaviour or has a real physical substance. At least, i think that some kind of wave (information-flow) should exist, although not defined in space (time) as we know it and therefore it's essence should not be 'energy' in the first place, but some kind of 'correlations' (information).



You wrote

"Very simply, QM does not explain anything!"

Yes, my view, too. It does not ‘explain’ (because explanations as we know them refer always to space and time) nor can it interpret, it only *predicts* very accurately.

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan,

You write,

"Equations in maths could always be understood as tautologies, because at the left side of the equation, there is the same as at the right side of the equation (quantitatively)"

In mathematics there is a very important and clear distinction between equations and identities (ie tautologies). Whereas in equations the two sides are 'quantitatively equal',...

view entire post

Dear Stefan,

You write,

"Equations in maths could always be understood as tautologies, because at the left side of the equation, there is the same as at the right side of the equation (quantitatively)"

In mathematics there is a very important and clear distinction between equations and identities (ie tautologies). Whereas in equations the two sides are 'quantitatively equal', in an identity (tautology) the two sides reduce to the 'same idea' (A is A). Tautologies are truisms, always true, whereas equations are sometimes true and in solving equations we find those 'instances' when they are true. The Pythagorean relation, for example, is always true for all right triangles. That Planck's Formula in Physics can be shown to be a mathematical identity (a truism ) is very significant. It should raise the interests of every physicist. I do not know of another basic law in physics that is a mathematical identity (a truism). Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is a basic law of Physics but it is NOT a mathematical identity in its formulation.

The approach in Physics has traditionally been to seek better and better 'mathematical models' that mimic the universe (particles of particles of particles, as it were!). I see limitations to this, since underlying this method is the notion that we can mathematically describe 'what is' whereas in principle we can only know our 'measurements of what is'. (see The Interaction of Measurement). Physics seeks to provide knowledge and understanding of our world that allows for duplication of known results and prediction of new results. The best that we can hope for mathematical models of the universe is that these be 'good approximations' (fit our experimental data). These models, however, cannot 'explain' anything and become very abstract and counter-intuitive. They lose touch with 'physical realism' and so become disconnected from our lives. But even more importantly, these mathematical models of reality are presented to us as Reality itself, defining our world in an unworldly way, leading to an unhealthy (spiritually and physically) disorientation, pitting us against our own experience and life. That these models allow predictability is of little comfort, if they take away 'meaning' from our lives. I believe this approach is not necessary. There are human approaches to human understanding, if we only let go of human monstrosities.

Mathematical derivations based on identities are also identities and so also always true. While the essence of physics is 'measurement'. Combining 'identities' with 'measurement', therefore provides a solid foundation to build a theory that is always true and moreover based on our experience (measurements and observations). This is what I mean when I say we need to formulate Basic Law of Physics as Mathematical Identities that describe the interaction of measurements.

You write,

"A single dot 'must' only appear, because that's the result of our many observations/measurements over the decades."

What I was addressing here is the assertion often made by physicists that the double-slit experiment can be explained by QM. As your quote above suggests, QM does not explain any of this. It takes the experimental results and postulates these as 'truths of nature'. But then QM deductions reflect nothing more than these assumptions, these 'truths of nature'. So, 'assume' these experimental facts, build a theory based on these assumptions, and use the theory to explain these experimental facts! Sounds like circular reasoning to me. A tautology! But perhaps all theory is tautological. And if QM is a mathematical tautology that is build on the 'interactions of measurements' (which I believe it can be formulated to be!) then its very accurate formal computation is no surprise. Exactly this is also the case with Planck's Formula! This also gives a remarkably close fit to experimental data! This is so because, as I've shown, Planck's Formula is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of energy measurement. With QM we may have a powerful mathematical tool that gives impressive formal results that every physicists uses but no physicist understands, according to Feynman! Calling for 'physical realism' is a call to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'.

Constantinos

view post as summary

Hello John,

... sorry about the math in the papers! There is no other was to derive these results and prove their validity other than with some math. In comparison to the math used by others, this is really very basic, not beyond calculus. But I understand your reluctance, however. This need not stop us from further exploration of topics in physics however.

We both agree that current...

view entire post

Hello John,

... sorry about the math in the papers! There is no other was to derive these results and prove their validity other than with some math. In comparison to the math used by others, this is really very basic, not beyond calculus. But I understand your reluctance, however. This need not stop us from further exploration of topics in physics however.

We both agree that current theories are just too detached from 'common sense'. Some would argue such is the nature of the universe - that it can only be expressed through abstract mathematical models. It need not make sense. I tend to disagree! Whatever is true must be true for anybody to 'make sense'. Universal truth is not limited to the few 'high priests of physics'. Intellectual prowess can push a theory beyond anybody's comprehension but that alone does not make it true. And though it can be said to be 'mathematically valid', it is not 'true' if it does not explain our experiences of the world. As I often say, 'intelligence is not synonymous with wisdom'.

More specifically to your Big Bang objections. I completely agree! I too feel that there may be other explanations to the red-shift phenomenon, as also the background radiation. Too often I find that once physicists embrace the first good explanation (no matter how counter-intuitive it may be) it becomes a fact of nature. It is give 'material reality' as concrete as Newton's apple. For me the Big Bank theory does not make sense because it gives a 'starting point' to the Universe. This I feel is philosophically unbalanced. Truth is round! Reality cannot have a beginning or an end. It just 'is'. For what was before the Big Bank? Does the Universe 'age'? If it doesn't age and remains the same, than what meaning does 'time' have?And if it 'ages' than does it also 'end'. And if it does not end but just keeps on aging, than how could we know that it is aging? What would be such characteristics? If the Universe ends will time just seize? And without time, does space also seize? Anyway, you see the many paradoxes this philosophically unbalanced notion (a Universe with a beginning) creates. It's useless to ponder the imponderable. I am contend to start with 'what is' and seek to make sense of my experience of it.

I find many of our current enigmas in physics have their roots in the notion of 'energy quanta' used by Planck to prove his formula for blackbody radiation and in Einstein's photoelectric effect explanation using photons. But as I have shown in Planck's Formula is an Exact Mathematical Identity and in Photoelectric Effect without Photons, it is possible to derive both of these early results without using energy quanta.

Constantinos

view post as summary

Stefan, continuing with our discussion of the double-slit experiment ...

I have not adequately responded to your objection that photo-plates can detect both 'wave pattern' as well as 'particle pattern'. Therefore, you argue, it can't be the design of the detector that alone accounts for the 'wave/particle' nature of light. I have some questions about this.

1) Can 'single photons' be...

view entire post

Stefan, continuing with our discussion of the double-slit experiment ...

I have not adequately responded to your objection that photo-plates can detect both 'wave pattern' as well as 'particle pattern'. Therefore, you argue, it can't be the design of the detector that alone accounts for the 'wave/particle' nature of light. I have some questions about this.

1) Can 'single photons' be detected by photo-plates? How is that? What exactly can be seen on the photo-plate? My understanding is that such a crude method of detection cannot be used in a single emission experiment. You need the kind of instrumentation as with the Tonomura 1989 experiment. The detection screen in such kind of experiment is very sophisticated and designed to detect 'single electron hits'. If so, than my criticism stands. The design of the detector determines whether we find 'particles' or 'waves'!

2) If single photons cannot be detected, but a stream of photons striking the photo-plate is recorded, than is that a sharp and distinct dot, or is there some diffraction spread of the image captured by the photo-plate? Is this pattern any different than if a wave passes through a single slit? My understanding is that the pattern on the screen observed when just one slit is open is the same whether we have waves or particles passing through the single slit. The difference between particle and wave nature only shows up with a double slit!

The passage below comes from an article in Wikipedia on the double-slit experiment:

"It is a widespread misunderstanding that, when two slits are open but a detector is added to the experiment to determine which slit a photon has passed through, then the interference pattern no longer forms and the experimental apparatus yields two simple patterns, one from each slit, superposed without interference. Such a result would be obtained only if the results of two experiments were superposed in which either one or the other slit is closed. However, there are many other methods to determine whether a photon passed through a slit, for instance by placing an atom at the position of each slit and monitoring whether one of these atoms is influenced by a photon passing it. In general in such experiments the interference pattern will be changed but not be completely wiped out."

From this quote what we can conclude for certain is that with both slits open and a detector present between the slit-plane and the screen the interference pattern disappears when the detector is on while it reappears when the detector is off. But that is no surprise! Certainly the detector must interact to make detection and so interferes with the energy flow to the screen. This will occur no matter where the detector is placed (as is seen with the 'delayed choice experiments'). Interestingly, when the device is such that interferes minimally with the energy flow to the screen, the interference pattern does NOT disappear but is somewhat altered! Should we be surprised? I am not! We see this when in a dark room light passes through a peep hole and projects a diffuse image on a wall. Put your finger in front of the light beam even partially and the image projected on the wall changes.

The 'single emission' Tonomura experiments encapsulates the entire enigma of the double-slit experiment. This experiment I believe I explained in A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment.

As for your 4 detector scenario ... why just 4? I think an interesting version of the double slit experiment is to have a detection screen made up of a large array of independent and insulated single photon detectors. Will the experimental results change if you have many independent detectors? Will duplicate copies of the interference pattern fill in over time for each detector, like a broken mirror that reflects the same image multiple times? I don't know!

Lighting strikes also are 'single hits'. Does this contradict the fact that electrical energy accumulated over large areas of clouds before lightning is manifested at some point in the sky? The statement, "before 'manifestation of energy' we have 'accumulation of energy' ", is logically independent of the 'single hit each time' observations. If QM has adapted 'single hits' as a postulate, I can do the same if I so choose! Or I can leave it as an occurance that depends on local equilibrium conditions which cannot be completely known.

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, thank you for your provocative posts. They help me clarify my views more. I appreciate the discussion.

The mathematical foundations of QM that I have read list the 'wave-function collapse' upon measurement as one of the axioms, along with the Schroedinger equation. Perhaps other formulations of QM can be different. Perhaps also someone reading our posts that knows more about...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, thank you for your provocative posts. They help me clarify my views more. I appreciate the discussion.

The mathematical foundations of QM that I have read list the 'wave-function collapse' upon measurement as one of the axioms, along with the Schroedinger equation. Perhaps other formulations of QM can be different. Perhaps also someone reading our posts that knows more about this can respond and clarify this for us. Still, you objection stands. Whether QM predicts single detections or its a well established experimental fact this happens, my explanation of the double slit experiment will need to answer this.

I list below in condensed form the principles that collectively form my explanation of the double slit experiment (and also some other basic derivations like, Planck's Law is an Exact Mathematical Identity and the Photoelectric Effect without Photons).

1)The 'photon emitted' may not be the same as the 'photon detected'. There is no trajectory that connects these two events.

2)Globally energy propagates continuously as a wave but locally is manifested discretely.

3)We have 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'

The following plausible argument leads me to my reasoning.

The experimental apparatus to a typical double slit experiment using light can be thought of as consisting of

a) a beam of light that can be adjusted to any intensity, all the way down to a 'single photon'

b) the barrier with two parallel slits through which the beam of light passes

c) the detection screen that the beam of light can be projected to

If we consider a) separately and alone, what happens as the light propagates through space does not abruptly become different when we continuously dim the beam until the beam consists of the energy of a single photon.

If we consider b) separately and alone, what happens as the light passes through the two slits does not abruptly become different when we continuously dim the beam until the beam consists of the energy of a single photon.

If we consider c) separately and alone, what happens as the light is projected on the screen does not abruptly become different when we continuously dim the beam until the beam consists of the energy of a single photon.

But when the beam is a single photon we may no longer see the image projected onto the screen because it is invisible to us. So we use instruments to make that 'photon of light' visible to us. Using our instruments, we detect a dot localized at some point on the detection screen. Is this dot what is produced at our detection screen when an amount of energy equal to one photon is absorbed by our detector and is manifested locally as that dot, or is this dot a 'photon hit' of that photon that was 'fired' by the emission trigger?

'Physical realism' convinces me that whatever was happening when the intensity of light was high is also happening when the intensity of light is reduced down to such low levels as 'single photons'. So I argue that the interference pattern we were observing before when the intensity was high persists when the intensity of light is lowered down to the level of 'single photons'. The dot that I see on the detection screen is what the instrument produced locally having absorbed an additional amount of one photon energy which becomes manifested by the detector as a localized dot. This is analogous to having an electrically charged cloud saturated to the brim receive on more unit of electric charge. The result is a lightning flash, but where locally that flash will occur is not known and depends on 'local conditions'.

I realize now that my 'pop corn' analogy with the absorption of heat was imperfect and misleading since in that case you can have several seeds pop at once. The charged cloud and lightning analogy I think may be closer to what happens.

The energy of that additional 'photon' that was emitted may be radiated over an area on the screen, but the manifestation of that 'photon' can be localized at that point on the screen where local conditions determine. Locality is not independent from the whole!

I believe this understanding of my explanation will result in 'single detections' for 'single emissions' .

I welcome your questions and objections.

Sincerely,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your open-mindedness and first of all for your fair-mindedness. In my opinion the latter is the most important thing to be able to approximate oneself to personal, intersubjective or physical truths, all the things that are part of reality. To approximate to reality "as it is", one has - in my opinion - take into account new information if it...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

thank you very much for your open-mindedness and first of all for your fair-mindedness. In my opinion the latter is the most important thing to be able to approximate oneself to personal, intersubjective or physical truths, all the things that are part of reality. To approximate to reality "as it is", one has - in my opinion - take into account new information if it occurs.

I puzzled a lot over the enigmas of QM in the past. There are interesting and provoking explanations from very good scientists for very hard problems - for example the problem of free will, the problem of the objective existence of randomness in QM and many more.

I can advocate for example, - if one is interested in a mere deterministic approach to explain some QM-puzzles - the work of Hans de Raedt. You can google him or look up his interesting work at arxiv.org. But i beg you to not ask me details about the "mechanisms" he and his colleagues use, because i don't understand the maths behind etc. I only want to give you the information that there exist some interesting approaches. The next approach looks more at the role of randomness and time in QM: Antoine Suarez has performed very interesting experiments, check them, if you like, at arxiv.org or quantumphil.org. Also Dieter Zeh has interesting papers on his website, you can google his website, and Erich Joos at decoherence.de, and Wojciech Zurek and surely also Anton Zeilinger with his information-theoretic approach (1 bit of information per quant).

"I believe this understanding of my explanation will result in 'single detections' for 'single emissions' ."

Yes, i think it would.

"The energy of that additional 'photon' that was emitted may be radiated over an area on the screen, but the manifestation of that 'photon' can be localized at that point on the screen where local conditions determine. Locality is not independent from the whole!"

You try to "explain" the single outcome of a quantum measurement via causally determined interactions of your global energy-wave with some local conditions at the screen. Besides the question, what those local conditions could be which lead to a decision for exactly one point (for the latter you had to explain why at exactly this point the local conditions are mutually exclusive to other relevant points at the screen), there is still another problem: Your global energy-wave had to concentrate into that one point much faster than light. Imagine a photon, that was some thousand lightyears on its way towards earth from space deep outside. Now we can measure this photon and therefore the energy belonging to it must travel much, much faster than light to concentrate at exactly the point YOU want to measure it in, say, the next second. This shows to me that a naive picture of a real physical energy-wave does not bring any additional information to elucidate reality. For me, all explanations of those experiments that use naive concepts of space, time and energy must fail (sooner or later).

"'Physical realism' convinces me that whatever was happening when the intensity of light was high is also happening when the intensity of light is reduced down to such low levels as 'single photons'."

If 'energy' in your approach is understood as classical, time-obeying 'matter', then i think your approach fails and is in conflict with special relativity. If it is understood as information-like non-local entanglement, then there is no need to assume a one-to-one correspondence between classical and QM-like waves (except *maybe* for the many-world-interpretation?).

Greetings,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, you write

" ...take into account new information if it occurs."

Intellectual honesty and integrity would have it no other way. And if there is no objective search for truth, then the whole enterprise become 'about us' and not 'about science'. I seek nothing other than an honest discussion of ideas that have merit on their own right. My experience with the Physics...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, you write

" ...take into account new information if it occurs."

Intellectual honesty and integrity would have it no other way. And if there is no objective search for truth, then the whole enterprise become 'about us' and not 'about science'. I seek nothing other than an honest discussion of ideas that have merit on their own right. My experience with the Physics establishment is that this is next to impossible. And this leads me to the conclusion that for the 'orthodoxy' this is not about 'truth' but about established 'theory'. Theory in Greek is 'domain of the gods'. It is closely related to 'theology'!

The questions that you raised concerning my explanation of the double slit experiment are important. I do take them to mind. I do puzzle over them and seek answers that 'make sense'. But too often, these questions can only be answered through the right experiments. And that is where the matter ends. But let me give you another example of an idea that in my view has merit for consideration and discussion.

The very foundations of QM goes back to the time of Planck and his use of 'energy quanta' to derive his empirically found formula for blackbody radiation. At the time this idea of 'energy quanta' got much scrutiny with many physicists at the time seeking an alternative derivation of Planck's Formula that does not depend of 'quanta'. None was found, therefore they concluded that 'quanta' is an established fact of how nature must be. All of Quantum Physics followed from that beginning.

One hundred years later I have a very simple derivation of Planck's Formula that does not use 'quanta' or discrete statistical methods, but uses continuous processes. Moreover, and this is in my opinion a very important result, I show that Planck's Formula is an 'exact mathematical identity' (a mathematical 'truism', as it were). In spite of my many efforts to have this results properly reviewed by accredited physicists, the best I got were knee-jerk rejections but no reasoned refutation of this results. This is indicative of the narrow-minded gate keeping that goes on to new and controversial ideas.

Thank you for your references and suggestions. I will seek these out when the time permits. But let me just say that there is no end to the many 'exotic explanations' to the many counter-intuitive results of QM. But all these explanations are either 'mathematically removed' or 'philosophically removed' from any 'physical realism'. For me, they provide no explanation, as QM provides no explanations but only 'formal recipes' for getting predictable results. They could be elaborate 'mathematical card tricks'!

Stafan, we need to get back to 'physical realism'. That is what drives my efforts. The view that QM and Modern Physics presents of our world is one that puts us at odds with our own lives and experiences. This just can't be! That the intellectual abilities of some people can create such a world does not in itself make it 'real'. Intelligence is not synonymous with wisdom!

In my previous post to you I tried to outline how my explanation of the double slit experiment is based on 'physical realism'. If we keep the experimental apparatus constant but only replace our 'detection devices' and as a consequence we detect something different, has the nature of the experiment changed all of the sudden? 'The experiment has not changed, just the detection of the results has changed. The 'source' of the beam has not changed. The effects of the double slit barrier on that beam has not changed. If our detector is now telling us that we are detecting 'particles' whereas before we were detecting 'waves', 'physical realism' tells me that this is entirely due to the change in our method of detection. For the same input, our instruments were designed to produce different results.

We are so dependent on our instruments and on mathematics to tell us what we are seeing when we peek so microscopically into nature. Our view of the universe so completely depends on our instruments and the mathematics used for their design and for the interpretation of the results we get. We should carefully consider to what extend the design of our instruments and the formulations of our mathematics account for the experimental results we get. If we get results that are counter intuitive, we should be guided by our 'physical realism' to create explanations that 'make sense'. My explanation of the double slit experiment 'makes sense'.

Stefan, it's hard enough to describe the view I have for a 'single photon' detection. But when that explanation gets mixed up with ideas and images drawn from the admittedly counter intuitive views of QM and SP it takes us further away from the physical explanation I propose. I wish that I could untangle the mess in the many enigmatic and non-physical ideas that physicists use to understand the world. I propose something different. My explanations to experimental results must therefore be based on the physical view that I use, rather than some other view.

As to your objection,

"You try to "explain" the single outcome of a quantum measurement via causally determined interactions of your global energy-wave with some local conditions at the screen. "

We can only measure and observe what becomes 'manifested'. Before manifestation such exact local conditions cannot be known other than to say that certain areas of the screen hold a greater probability that energy will be manifested. There is a threshold that has to be reached before energy can be manifested. But before that point is reached we cannot predict where such manifestation will occur other than in broad probability terms (which is also what QM does).

To give you an example: We can predict that when the GDP of a country falls below a certain level, there will be unemployment in the country. We can even predict where that unemployment will happen using probability and statistics, but we cannot know who will be unemployed except if they get unemployed.

As to a 'single detection': when the electric charge in a cloud reaches that saturation point, there will be lighting flash at some place on the cloud, but we cannot know through any mechanical deterministic causality where locally that will occur. I believe the same thing may be happening to the detection screen. That it is maintained by design to that 'saturation level' so that when the energy of one more photon is projected onto it a single 'lighting flash' will occur at some one point on the screen to bring the screen back to preordained levels. Why doesn't this satisfy your 'single detection' objection? The confusion may be due to your insistence of a QM explanation of this. But QM we agree does not 'explain anything'. Only makes mathematical predictions. I am proposing a 'physical explanation'.

Your multiple detectors experiment I believe is an interesting one. It could clarify some of this confusion. But for now, I believe my 'physical explanation' still stands.

Cheers,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

you wrote

"Why doesn't this satisfy your 'single detection' objection?"

It satisfies my 'single detection' objection! But that's not the point in my view. The point is that your explanation interprets the things with the help of in principle unprovable assumptions - with no physical consequences to prove (for the scope to decide if your assumptions could be...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

you wrote

"Why doesn't this satisfy your 'single detection' objection?"

It satisfies my 'single detection' objection! But that's not the point in my view. The point is that your explanation interprets the things with the help of in principle unprovable assumptions - with no physical consequences to prove (for the scope to decide if your assumptions could be right or wrong). Because you say that "There is a threshold that has to be reached before energy can be manifested." but we never could prove this because beyond that threshold there is no chance to measure 'energy beyond a treshold' of a quanta. Additionally your interpretation comes into deep difficulties when applied to relevant experiments (see below). Your explanation explains nothing (neither the delayed-choice-experiments nor the behaviour of a single photon in a Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer when the second beam-splitter isn't in it) and therefore it is for me just a *trying* of an interpretation, no explanation that is better or equivalent with others.

If things would be indeed like you exposed in your last posts, then in the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer with the second beam-splitter not in the interferometer, there had to come a wave over both ways with the half of the energy of the original wave in each path (= half of a photon's wave) - because the first beam-splitter acts like a double-slit. How do the two partial waves behave at the point where the second beam-splitter could be (but is not) - and why does a detector click at all for each run of that setup when only the half of the energy of a photon is projected to each detector? Why should in this experiment your statement for the detector "That it is maintained by design to that 'saturation level' so that when the energy of one more photon is projected onto it a single 'lighting flash' will occur at some one point" be true coevally with your picture of an energetic photon-wave with apportionable energy-level? The two detectors are independent from each other, because they could stand many lightyears away from each other.

Please look for the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer in the internet, the mentioned scenario is not even a delayed-choice-experiment, but only a standard quantum optical device and cannot be explained with your interpretation.

You wrote

"To give you an example: We can predict that when the GDP of a country falls below a certain level, there will be unemployment in the country. We can even predict where that unemployment will happen using probability and statistics, but we cannot know who will be unemployed except if they get unemployed."

I do not claim that i assume single quantum events to be predictable at all. I do think that single quantum events have no causes in space and time. I can't prove this, so please see it as my personal opinion and not as a fact that i set up as a dogma. But independent from my personal view, if you claim to have an explanation, you should indeed be able to explain the facts with your framework for all experimental cases belonging to the realm of quantum optics and physical realism.

Well, cheers, too

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, thank you for your thought provoking comments. Be assured that I am not wed to any of my ideas and only embrace them to the extend that they satisfy my 'physical needs'. If you show me pictures of their infidelity to truth I will immediately divorce myself from them.

I need to explain more what I am seeking ...

Mathematics provides 'logical certainty' but does not...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, thank you for your thought provoking comments. Be assured that I am not wed to any of my ideas and only embrace them to the extend that they satisfy my 'physical needs'. If you show me pictures of their infidelity to truth I will immediately divorce myself from them.

I need to explain more what I am seeking ...

Mathematics provides 'logical certainty' but does not provide us 'truth'. Mathematical models of the Universe are therefore deeply flawed, in my opinion. So leaving all mathematical formalism of QM and other fields of physics aside, I ask for 'physical explanations' to experimental findings. Simply put, a 'physical explanation' is what 'makes sense' not just to the theorist but to non-theorists alike. These are explanations that draw from a common experience of the world and use language and images from this shared interactions with it.

The physical explanations that I seek are consistent and confluent with our experience. They do not put us in contradiction with our own experience nor demand that we intellectually yield to a world in conflict with our senses! QM does not provide us with 'physical explanations' that 'make sense'. That the mathematical formalism of QM provides predictions to experimental outcomes is of some consolation but is not entirely satisfactory. Physicists in desperation argue that the world of physics is not the same as the world of our senses. This is a masked excuse for their failures to create such explanations. The world is one and the same for everyone, or it should be! I believe we have a right to 'physical realism'. I believe this is possible.

Let me give you an example that ties to the discussion we're having on the double slit experiment.

Performing the experiment when the light is bright we see the familiar interference pattern on the screen. We have an explanation of this effect that goes back to Young in 1803. We know this is the behavior of light waves going through the two slits. This is a 'physical explanation'. It makes sense!

Now as we systematically lower the intensity of light, the pattern on the screen will correspondingly dim and become invisible. Has the physical phenomenon that we were observing before all of the sudden change? Physical realism will answer No! The same physical phenomenon continues to be true.

Because we can no longer see the projected image on the screen we bring into our experimental apparatus instruments that can detect faint glimmers of light that are just invisible to us. Our instruments take an amount of faint light and produce a dot on the detection screen. Over time these dots fill in the familiar interference pattern we've seen before.

We have a choice to make. We can conclude that,

a) Our instruments display light as by nature.

b) Our instruments display light as by design.

Choice a) contradicts our experience and makes our 'physical explanation' false.

Choice b) maintains our experience and keeps our 'physical explanation' true.

'Physical realism' will lead us to choice b)!

I don't mean to suggest this addresses all your objections re: the double slit experiment. I use this only as an example of how 'physical realism' enters our thinking.

You write,

"The point is that your explanation interprets the things with the help of in principle unprovable assumptions - with no physical consequences to prove (for the scope to decide if your assumptions could be right or wrong)"

That is true! But isn't this the nature of postulates? What proves the 'photon hypothesis' other than how it entered theory to explain nature? So if a hypothesis is able to provide explanations it is taken to be true. But here is the difference. Whereas the explanations that the photon hypothesis provides contradict our senses, what I seek are principles that provide 'physical realism'. Moreover, I seek principles that are so deeply rooted in our experience of the world in so many other ways that become confluent and consistent with our lives. That there is an 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy' is an idea that 'makes sense'. The 'man on the street' will easily attest to it from his own experiences. Try telling him that light can be sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle! He will look at you with bewilderment and will believe you either to be polite or because you say so as his intellectual superior. But not because his senses tell him so. Any meaningful view of the world that we provide must 'make sense'.

You write,

" ...if you claim to have an explanation, you should indeed be able to explain the facts with your framework for all experimental cases"

Stefan, that's what I also like to do. I chose the 'single emission' Tonomura experiment because I believe this encapsulates the essence of the enigma of the double slit experiment, simultaneously showing the 'wave-particle' nature of light. And also this lends itself into a 'physical realism' that I seek. If you want to consider other experiments, describe to me the 'physical outcomes' using language and images drawn from physical realism, and not theoretical interpretations and images taken from QM that are already conceptually corrupted. Than I can consider these experiments as well. Perhaps we can take each of these one at a time and explore together ways that they can make sense.

You further write that,

" ...there had to come a wave over both ways with the half of the energy of the original wave in each path (= half of a photon's wave) - because the first beam-splitter acts like a double-slit."

Stefan, if a photon wave is split by a beam splitter, does the frequency of the two waves now change? And if the frequency does not change, wont then both waves with the same frequency also carry the full energy of the photon and not just half of the energy? Isn't this the 'photon hypothesis'? That the energy of a photon is equal to hv? Something is wrong with this picture! The fundamental contradiction between 'particle' and 'wave' flares up once again in our conceptual misunderstanding of the world!

I should stop! Enough said!

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

you wrote

"Stefan, if a photon wave is split by a beam splitter, does the frequency of the two waves now change?"

I don't think that the frequency does change, what changes is the amplitude of the process that i do call a "wave" - because i have no better picture for it.

You wrote

"The fundamental contradiction between 'particle' and 'wave'...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

you wrote

"Stefan, if a photon wave is split by a beam splitter, does the frequency of the two waves now change?"

I don't think that the frequency does change, what changes is the amplitude of the process that i do call a "wave" - because i have no better picture for it.

You wrote

"The fundamental contradiction between 'particle' and 'wave' flares up once again in our conceptual misunderstanding of the world!"

In my opinion you are right here. There is something wrong in our understanding of reality, the reality of wave-particle-dualism. Nobody really knows, what light really is, as less as someone could tell what space really is, what time really is, what matter really is, what energy really is. I think due to the various experiments with light over the decades, one can say that both, particles and waves (surely not water-waves, but light-waves), are secondary concepts of our minds that are able to link observations causally for our minds, observations that cannot result out of merely tautological contexts, because every tautology cannot lead to new information a priori. But with our observations and the building of our theories, we are able to find new information in a well-directed manner by prediction. If the human body as a measurement-apparatus would be only one side of that tautology, then it would be hard to imagine "Gedankenexperiments" that could lead to new informations, counter-examples etc. Maybe transformation is the key to tautological structures that are able to dynamically change their "forms" (but who knows what "form" really is...?). That's the reason why i don't believe that the absence of reliable information about the true circumstances in the world of "particles and waves" is grounded in a "universal tautology", but carries some information about the limits of our pictures how reality should be!

You wrote

"If you want to consider other experiments, describe to me the 'physical outcomes' using language and images drawn from physical realism, and not theoretical interpretations and images taken from QM that are already conceptually corrupted. Than I can consider these experiments as well. Perhaps we can take each of these one at a time and explore together ways that they can make sense."

Constantinos, that's a little bit bitchy...! I did exactly this in my last post, using your language of physical realism by describing what happens if a single "particle" goes through the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer as a wave (splitted by the beam-splitter). Due to your hypothesis, it should not be able to force a detector to click, but the real physical outcomes contradict this view of reality. (By the way: Is your "continous energy-wave" not also a theoretical interpretation in the first place, drawn from assumptions that you a priori label with realistic, only because you assume the majority of the people to aim thinking in classical pictures?).

I wrote

"The point is that your explanation interprets the things with the help of in principle unprovable assumptions - with no physical consequences to prove (for the scope to decide if your assumptions could be right or wrong)"

You answered

"That is true!"

No, it isn't true - i exaggerated here. The best disproof of your entire hypothesis is my counter-example with the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer. If there's really a continous energetical energy-wave on its way towards the two detectors, then this must have - according to your physical realism - real physical consequences for our observations. This consequences must be in such way, that for some runs *no* detector clicks (for the case that you remain with your claim that only the full energy of a photon can force the detector to click) or that for some runs both detectors should click (for the case that you remain with your claim that accumulated energy is sufficient to force a click in a detector).

My impression is, that you have no clear standpoint concerning these questions and especially concerning the question, what is sufficient in your "interpretation" to force such a detector to click (is it the whole photon's energy of a single run, or is it the accumulated energy of more than a single run???). But if you can't anwer these simple questions for an experiment that is as easy as Youngs double-slit-experiment, why should anybody think, that your statements are about an "interpretation" at all?

I wrote

"The point is that your explanation interprets the things with the help of in principle unprovable assumptions - with no physical consequences to prove (for the scope to decide if your assumptions could be right or wrong)"

You wrote

"But isn't this the nature of postulates? What proves the 'photon hypothesis' other than how it entered theory to explain nature? So if a hypothesis is able to provide explanations it is taken to be true."

No! That has nothing to do with postulates! The photon hypothesis can be proven (insofar that no contradicting information results via that proof - you know, Carl Popper would say, only a falsification is a proof) by predicting phenomena, experimental results. The photon hypothesis is only taken to be true, as long as there aren't other predictions that can be proven experimentally. But your "interpretation" is such that it can be porven (falsified) easily via experiment.

You wrote

"We have a choice to make."

Maybe. But: Your assumption that your continous, energetical wave is real and obeys your definitions of behaviour is fully independent of the design of the detectors (as long as they can reliably detect single quantum impacts - what i will presume). The detectors cannot be designed other than for obeying quantum mechanics, independent of the question, if quantum mechanics is "deeply wrong" or not. Indempendent, because your assumption of a "sub-quantum energy-treshold" that can be continous reached before any measureable manifestation of enery is feasible is either way not directly provable and therefore has to be proven indirectly (my proposal is to prove it by thinking about the question if your energetical wave really can do in the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer what it should do due to your assumptions). So, wouldn't it not be better to first prove that and then to make your choice (i had to do it the same way before dismissing your interpretation!).

Greetings and Cheers,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, the question I asked in my last post to you

" ...if a photon wave is split by a beam splitter, does the frequency of the two waves now change? "

was rhetorical! The real question left unanswered is,

"And if the frequency does not change, wont then both waves with the same frequency also carry the full energy of the photon and not just half of the...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, the question I asked in my last post to you

" ...if a photon wave is split by a beam splitter, does the frequency of the two waves now change? "

was rhetorical! The real question left unanswered is,

"And if the frequency does not change, wont then both waves with the same frequency also carry the full energy of the photon and not just half of the energy?"

This is my answer to your question about the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer. You asked there,

" ...why does a detector click at all for each run of that setup when only the half of the energy of a photon is projected to each detector?"

The energy of each 'photon' is determined by the frequency. Since when the beam is split the frequency does not change, we have the same energy of the 'photon' at each split-beam.

Stefan, there is much here that depends on the actual design of the experimental apparatus that we just don't know, but could answer the questions you raise. It's the reason why I feel we need to frame our inquiry in terms of 'physical realism' that we can both agree. The larger point I was making in my last post has to do with the need for 'physical realism' in physics and my deep belief that this is possible.

Here is why I believe 'physical realism' is possible.

Mathematical models of the universe do not in themselves create 'meaning'. Models are based on the view of the world we have. The view gives meaning to the mathematics we use. Human beings create this view and create this meaning. And when in history the model we have of the world loses meaning, man always found new meaning by creating a new view of reality. A view that is confluent and consistent with experience. The view of the world QM presents lacks meaning. It provides no 'physical explanations' but elaborate formal recipes and rituals. But the possibility for meaning is there. We should 'look for meaning where meaning is not found'. This is what I am seeking. This attitude I call 'physical realism'.

More to this point: The quantity 'accumulation of energy' naturally appears in my papers. In my view it is the 'prime physis' (first nature). In Prime 'physis' and the Mathematical Derivation of Basic Law I try to briefly sketch out how using this quantity we can define energy and momentum and mathematically derive some basic laws of physics like Conservation of Energy and Momentum and Newton's Second Law of Motion. This quantity also plays a key role in my derivation of Planck's Formula that shows this is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy. Furthermore, I show that Planck's constant is such a quantity and the wave function in Schroedinger's equation gives the space-time distribution of this quantity (accumulation of energy). We can also define temperature in terms of it and explain the photoelectric effect with this and without using energy quanta. So when the same quantity (accumulation of energy) also shows up in my plausible explanation of the double-slit experiment, it just is not an isolated instance to provide an isolated answer to an isolated results. This entire body of work that I present is all inter-related and touch upon many areas of physics, providing 'physical explanations' to these and making 'physical realism' a real possibility.

Using this approach we are able to

1)Derive Planck's Law as an exact mathematical truism without using energy quanta.

2)Prove the quantization hypothesis that E = hv.

3)Obtain equations that explain the Photoelectric effect without using photons.

4)Argue for the existence of Planck's constant

5)Give meaning to the wave-function and to Schrodinger's equation

6)define in a non-thermodynamic way the temperature of radiation

7)Give new meaning to Planck's constant and show that it is the minimal accumulation of energy that can be manifested.

8)Obtain a duration of time needed for an accumulation of energy h to occur.

cheers,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, you write,

" [my explanations] do in every case contradict the observed experimental results."

If I was to walk on water, you would be questioning my ability to swim!

I was so sure I answered your previous objection re: Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer. Perhaps I am not understanding your description of this experiment. Please confirm if the following is a correct...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, you write,

" [my explanations] do in every case contradict the observed experimental results."

If I was to walk on water, you would be questioning my ability to swim!

I was so sure I answered your previous objection re: Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer. Perhaps I am not understanding your description of this experiment. Please confirm if the following is a correct understanding of this.

1) You have a beam of light that is split into two equal parts, A and B, by a beam-splitter.

2) At the end of each of these beams A and B there is a 'single photon' detector placed.

3) Detector A records 'single photons' and detector B also records 'single photons' as if these detectors were acting alone and independent.

I will wait for your confirmation/revision of this understanding of this experiment. In the meantime perhaps you can comment specifically your objections to the three principles that I enumerated in previous posts and list again below.

1) The 'electron emitted' may not be the same as the 'electron detected'.

2) Globally energy propagates continuously while locally energy interacts discretely.

3) There is an 'accumulation of energy' before there is a 'manifestation of energy'

As to your other points.

It is wrong to think my position is opposed to QM. My call for 'physical realism' seeks to affirm QM by 'looking for meaning where meaning is not found'. It does not negate or in any way alter the mathematical formalism of QM. It simply asks, 'what does it mean?' and seeks an interpretation of the formalism that is confluent and consistent with our experience.

You see Stefan, even physicists acknowledge that they have no 'physical understanding' of QM. When I asked a Princeton physics professor 'what does QM mean', he shrugged his shoulders and simply affirmed that he is in the business of 'making predictions' using the mathematical recipes that QM provides him. That he is not in the business of 'making meaning' and leaves this to others more 'metaphysically inclined'. If you are satisfied with that Stefan, than nothing I can argue will make a difference.

The example I offered in my last post was meant only to illustrate how the attitude of 'physical realism' can enter our intellectual resolve. I ask, if in an experiment all our apparatus and methods stay the same but our detection device is changed and now we see something contrary to what we saw before (say 'particles' rather than 'waves'), do we conclude that 'nature changed' or that our 'device changed'? Any change in the detection methods to the exact same experiment should show as something 'more' but not something 'opposite'. More broadly I raise the possibility that our very instruments may reflect back to us the 'designed outcomes' we put into these. Have I reached final conclusions on this? Of course not. But I see it as a very real possibility that could explain many of the contradictions of QM.

I am truly puzzled by your statement,

"It doesn't help to divorce nature and design. Whatever rules the behaviour of subatomic matter, matter must obey these rules - in all cases, if nature or design,"

Stefan, nature has its own 'rules' which we don't know but seek to understand, whereas our instruments have our deliberate design. Are you saying that nature is not independent of the design of our instruments? That we can change nature just by changing our instruments? Are you saying we now have the Power to Create our Universe just by the Design of the Instruments we Create? Or are you saying that it 'doesn't help'. That for better or worst 'nature' and 'instrument design' are so wed and interwoven in our theories and Physics that the two can no longer be thought of as having separate identity and existence! If that is so, shouldn't we know that and take it into account when we create our theories and our explanations? That our instruments are predisposed by design to produce certain outcomes? Otherwise this opens up the doors to 'phantasmagorical unreality' that we now have and that I object to.

The 'choice' that I offer in my previous post is not a choice between QM and Physical Realism as you took it. Rather it is a choice between 'physical realism' and 'phantasmagorical unreality' that often passes as 'explanations' to experimental results. Do I need to give examples of this? How about 'multiverses' or 'photons with independent free will and consciousness'! Want me to go on? I can fill many pages of such. I object to all of it. Do you fill comforted and enlightened by all this? Do these help you 'make sense' of your experiences? If so, I have nothing to say!

Greetings,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

thanks again for your post.

"If I was to walk on water, you would be questioning my ability to swim!"

No, i would assume that you are walking on a sinking boat and let the question for your ability to swim unanswered!

Constantinos, I attached a scribble of the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer for you to tell you what can be observed under certain...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

thanks again for your post.

"If I was to walk on water, you would be questioning my ability to swim!"

No, i would assume that you are walking on a sinking boat and let the question for your ability to swim unanswered!

Constantinos, I attached a scribble of the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer for you to tell you what can be observed under certain conditions of the experiment.

As you can see, there is a second beam-splitter HS 2 (of the same kind as HS 1) in the setup. But first i want to take it out of the setup. Now we have only one beam-splitter HS 1 in the experiment.

Now we fire single photons per run into the setup. HS 1 has a probability of 50% to let pass a photon. Hence with a probability of 50% the photon can also be reflected and goes its path to S 2 (a mirror of the same kind as S 1). Hence, the probabilities for each detector (D1 and D2) to detect the photon is 50%. This can be proven via many runs of the experiment. For this configuration of the experiment, it seems that we can deduce for every detected photon its entire way trough the setup.

Now we make another kind of experiment. Again we fire a photon into the setup. After the photon has left HS 1 and is on its way to the place, where HS 2 stood, we bring HS 2 into the setup again, at the same place where it stood before. Now the probability for detector D2 to detect the photon is 0% and the probability for D1 to detect the photon is 100%. This can be proven again by many single runs. Now this kind of experiment is a delayed-choice experiment. Physicists have a clear explanation in mind why the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer with HS 2 in the setup doesn't allow D2 to click at all (this picture is independent of a delayed insertion of HS 2 or the insertion of HS 2 before we fire the photon into the setup).

For the latter kind of the experiment (with HS 2 in the setup), it seems that there is a superposition of the photon's way through the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer. It seems, that the photon takes both ways, the way via S1 and the way via S2. At HS 2, both "photon-waves" are superposed again and interfere with one another, resulting in 100% destructive interference for the two splitted beams that are directed towards D2 – due to a phase-shift of lambda/2 between them. The other two splitted beams are identical in phase and that leads to 100% constructive interference and therefore 100% probability for D1 to click.

HS 1 and HS 2 are identically by design. Both work for single photons in such a way, that they either let pass the photon or reflect it. We saw this above with the help of the first experimental setup.

How can you explain with your picture of a continous energy-wave why in the second experimental setup (with HS 2 included) D2 never does click anymore? If there's indeed a continous energy-wave in the setup that distributes energy below hv to the detectors, then this should also be the case when HS 2 is not in the setup and vice versa. So why does a detector click at all in the latter case (HS 2 not included), if you assume that the particle's original energy hv (continously distributed over a large spacetime-area with the help of the Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer) is needed to force a detector to click. Do you assume a 'phantasmagorical unreality' and say, that the energy hv, due to your theory spread into two distinct directions, can, somehow, be collected again and faster than light be focused into the detector which indeed does only click when the energy-amount of hv is delivered? And how do you explain with your continous energy-wave the fact, that in the case if HS 2 isn't in the setup, always only one of the two detectors click, but never both simultaneously? Do you assume a 'phantasmagorical unreality' and say that during all those experiments all over the world, the detectors haven’t been ‘initialized’ identically to your needed accumulation-level by chance?

So, what happens between the firing and the detection of the photon? Does it take just one path, does it take both paths, does it take non of the paths, or does it change it’s nature from particle to wave and vice versa, depending on HS 2 is inserted or not in the delayed-choice-manner – what is your interpretation?

And for the case that my outline of the mentioned experiments aren’t understandable for you, please make a look-up in the internet or in some good technical literature!

“Are you saying that nature is not independent of the design of our instrument“

No, I only say that the design of our instruments depends on nature’s laws, whatever they may be. You cannot design an instrument according to laws that don’t exist in nature.

“If you are satisfied with that Stefan, than nothing I can argue will make a difference“

No, I am not satisfied, please argue and let me see if you could eventually be right.

Greetings,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

i also have no idea what is going on, at least no idea that you probably would call physical realistic.

My only ideas are as follows:

An isolated quantum particle (isolated from its environment; environment like matter or an electromagnetic field that carries more than one photon) has only one bit of information and therefore looses some ability to behave as...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

i also have no idea what is going on, at least no idea that you probably would call physical realistic.

My only ideas are as follows:

An isolated quantum particle (isolated from its environment; environment like matter or an electromagnetic field that carries more than one photon) has only one bit of information and therefore looses some ability to behave as it would if it wouldn't be isolated in such an extreme way.

This information isn't energetical, it's not defined in space, but in non-local correlations between the photon and its environment. You know, QM is a theory that is somewhat holístic, the whole cannot really be divided into hermetically isolated parts - there are no really hermetically closed systems in nature (otherwise we could never measure or observe them; even 'black holes' aren't hermetically isolated).

The photon on its way between HS 1 and some detectors therefore can't anymore thought of as a perfect analogy to a multiple-particle-lightwave. In the case of HS 2 being out, i would say that nonetheless the induction that the photon started and the photon detected are one and the same object, is misleading.

In the case where HS 2 is in, it is also misleading to ascribe to the photon that it is really split into partial waves, neither energetically nor locally dynamical. I think so, because hv does suggest so and because otherwise there would occur the contradictions in the description i outlined to you in my last post.

Describing the photon as a wave in this case is only suggestive because nature continues to keep alive its wholeness for the case of only one bit available -via calculating all possible consequences (outcomes) by superposing them in a non-local manner via correlations with the environment and kick those parts of the correlations away in the case that the symmetry (the equal rights of all involved possibilities) is violated via new information in the form of different setups (and therefore measurements). The one-bit-information gets transformated and leaves an information-loss of one bit behind. This is only a layman's interpretation, but does explain, why single quantum events can't be predicted effectively. There is only one bit available to operate with and that one bit can be used in different forms according to the setup (setup = environment inclusively the physicist who decides what setup to use).

Constantinos, due to all these points of my personal view, you see that your speculations, described in your questions

"But this is no different than you not being able to tell me how it is that a photon 'carries and imparts its energy' and why that energy depends on the frequency alone, and what it means for a 'beam-splitter' to divide a photon in half and why now a photon with the same frequency has half the photon's energy."

are not my speculations.

Constantinos, you wrote

"1) The 'electron emitted' may not be the same as the 'electron detected'.

2) Globally energy propagates continuously while locally energy interacts discretely.

3) There is an 'accumulation of energy' before there is a 'manifestation of energy'"

To point 1): Yes, i do think so, too.

To point 2): No, i don't think that it is 'energy' that propagates. For the case of a single isolated photon i would say that there is no propagation at all in ordinary space, but non-local correlations of possiblities that can be collapsed into mutually exclusive outcomes due to only one bit of information that must be reconnected in some way to the whole.

Maybe that is similar to your term of 'Globally'?

To point 3): I don't think so. There are possibilities of more than one outcomes with (in our MZI-example) equal rights, but there can be only one outcome be measured due to only on bit in the setup to be measured.

That's my point of view. I don't think that it's perfect, but it is what i am convinced of as long as no other additional information could elucidate the whole area.

Greetings,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan,

I have thought about the MZI-experiments some more and have a little better understanding of what may possibly be going on. This is provisional and is based on the ideas I enumerated in previous posts. There is still much that I don't understand about the design and the technology used in an MZI, but I will simplify this to just the bare action of these devices (as I understand...

view entire post

Dear Stefan,

I have thought about the MZI-experiments some more and have a little better understanding of what may possibly be going on. This is provisional and is based on the ideas I enumerated in previous posts. There is still much that I don't understand about the design and the technology used in an MZI, but I will simplify this to just the bare action of these devices (as I understand it) and not the technology of them. In the back of my mind, I still hold the possibility that some of these results are elaborate 'smoke and mirrors'.

I don't see the HS1 and HS2 devices as true 'beam splitters'. If these were to 'split the wave of one photon energy' we would have serious problems explaining how now we get two photons with the same energy (since the energy of a photon depends only on its frequency and obviously both beam-halves will have the same frequency). This would certainly violate the Conservation of Energy Law.

Rather, what may be happening is that some 'photons' go through the device HS1 undisturbed and unmanifested onto S1 while other 'photons' interact with HS1 and are redirected to S2. And this happens with equal frequency. The device itself perhaps may make a 'filtering choice' which photons go through and which photons are redirected. So photons which are 'in-phase' go through undisturbed while photons which are 'out-phase' are redirected. And the reverse happens if the device was to be reversed (as is the case with HS2). When the device is reversed (ie when a photon comes to it from the reverse side), 'out-phase' photons go through while 'in-phase' photons are redirected.

The 'photons' that interact with HS1 become 'manifested' and would therefore have a time-delay which can result in a 'phase change'. This time-delay is caused because we have 'accumulation before manifestation' and 'energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely'. (In the paper Planck's Law is an Exact Mathematical Identity I show that in blackbody radiation for an accumulation of energy equal to h to occur it takes a duration of time equal to h/kT).

With this understanding we can now trace each photon in each of the experiments.

With HS2 removed:

An 'in-phase' photon will go through HS1 undisturbed, interact and redirected at S1 and so become 'out-phase', and become manifested at detector D2

An 'out-phase' photon will interact at HS1, become manifested 'in-phase' and redirected to S2 , become manifested and 'out-phase' at S2, and become manifested at detector D1

With HS2 in place and reversed to HS1 (note the difference in the diagram):

An 'in-phase' photon will go through HS1 undisturbed, interact and redirected at S1 and so become 'out-phase'. At HS2, the now 'out-phase' photon will interact, become 'in-phase' and redirected to detector D1 where it becomes manifested.

An 'out-phase' photon will interact at HS1, become manifested 'in-phase' and redirected to S2, become manifested 'out-phase' at S2 and redirected. At HS2, the now 'out-phase' photon with HS2 'reversed' goes through undisturbed to detector D1 where it becomes manifested.

Am I walking on water yet, Stefan, or still standing on sinking principles?

Cheers,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

you have many questions, but few answers concerning the bigger picture of reality/QM.

On Apr. 27, 2010, you wrote

“I have a confession to make! I don't believe in elementary particles! I view these as conceptual carry-overs from Classical Physics made to apply through brute mathematical formalism to all of Reality. Many of the dilemmas of modern physics imo...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

you have many questions, but few answers concerning the bigger picture of reality/QM.

On Apr. 27, 2010, you wrote

“I have a confession to make! I don't believe in elementary particles! I view these as conceptual carry-overs from Classical Physics made to apply through brute mathematical formalism to all of Reality. Many of the dilemmas of modern physics imo stem from this. Take the double-slit experiment, for example.”

So, there are no particles? Aha, O.k.

Double-Slit-Experiment? Ah, the experiment where, due to your assumptions, a particle splits in two partial waves that interfere with one another, having the same frequency but together only the energy-amount of 1 hv...

On May. 11, 2010, you wrote

“Rather, what may be happening is that some 'photons' go through the device HS1 undisturbed and unmanifested onto S1 while other 'photons' interact with HS1 and are redirected to S2.”

So, there are particles? Aha, O.k.

On May. 7, 2010, you wrote



“'Physical realism' convinces me that whatever was happening when the intensity of light was high is also happening when the intensity of light is reduced down to such low levels as 'single photons'. ... But when the beam is a single photon we may no longer see the image projected onto the screen because it is invisible to us. So we use instruments to make that 'photon of light' visible to us.”

So, are there waves again? Well, O.k. Hope, they do not propagate faster than light or violate conservation of energy by no more being able to be absorbed again - for the case that you also assume ghost-waves with the hidden variable of 'out-phase'!

On Apr. 22, 2010, you wrote

“Attempts to answer what the World IS leads to Metaphysics and Modern Physics!”

Hm, maybe it leads to continous energetical waves, too?

On Apr. 28, 2010, you wrote

“The most logical explanation is that 'we are finding what we are looking for'! The instruments we use are so designed by us to 'record particles' or to 'record waves'. They take the same input (energy) and record it in the manner that they are designed to do. Why should it surprise us if that's what we find when we use them? To think otherwise is to think that nature is playing games with us.“

and then in your post from May. 11, 2010

you tried to find what you are looking for by assuming “So photons which are 'in-phase' go through undisturbed while photons which are 'out-phase' are redirected.”

But that doesn’t worked well… Nature isn’t playing games with us. In my opinion you are playing games with yourself by an assumption, how nature should act. The MZI-experiments were surely performed with single photons. So you try again to find what you are looking for by asking me sophisticated questions about the modes of operation of the beam-splitters and why I don’t review your papers.

You said on May. 10, 2010

“It is wrong to think my position is opposed to QM. My call for 'physical realism' seeks to affirm QM by 'looking for meaning where meaning is not found'. It does not negate or in any way alter the mathematical formalism of QM. It simply asks, 'what does it mean?' and seeks an interpretation of the formalism that is confluent and consistent with our experience.“

With the mathematical formalism of QM, you can answer your questions 2) – 4). If you would have done this, you wouldn’t had to construct your hidden-variable theory. Personally, I bet that the experimental outcomes are in perfect agreement with QM and with path-interference-duality.

Constantinos, I am very sorry, but if you ask me why I don’t review your papers, I must query

why you don’t read the needed informations in the technical literature/internet about the experiments/instruments in question and then come back if you can explain the bigger picture with your physical realism consistently?

Until now, you only switch between abashmental set phrases because you cannot explain certain contradictions caused by your assumption of continous energetical waves, hidden variables and other stuff. Nobody, especially no physicist who works all days on that area would discuss so long as I did. But I have to do some other things, too. So if you have a more consistent interpretation to offer, I would be the last to be not interested. But for now, I think it is better for you to look up the details for sure and then look, how these could fit into your physical realism, that you want to find.

Greetings and all the best,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan, for full disclosure I should also share with you my original comments to your last post that I had left out. These address some of your objections. The 'provisional explanation' I offered to the MZI experiments you asked may turns out to be insufficient to explain all these results – many of which may have explanations that go beyond what we started to discuss: the Tonomura single...

view entire post

Dear Stefan, for full disclosure I should also share with you my original comments to your last post that I had left out. These address some of your objections. The 'provisional explanation' I offered to the MZI experiments you asked may turns out to be insufficient to explain all these results – many of which may have explanations that go beyond what we started to discuss: the Tonomura single emissions double slit experiment. But I feel I should be understood in the way I meant to be understood. It may be that every experiment in modern physics in some way is connected to every other. I hope you don't expect me to explain all these mysteries before any of my results can be even seriously considered! I await good discussions on some of my other results, especially the derivation of Planck's Law as a mathematical truism.

You write " ...you "switch" your explanations for various experiments ... ". All the explanations I offered are all consistently based on the same views and principles I enumerated in previous posts. It's not that my principles change, but the experiment you bring up changes each time, requiring a new adaptation of the same principles. For little understood experiments (like your last one) this I may not be able to provide. But just like I rarely know the 'magician's trick' in a 'smoke and mirrors' illusion, still I can conclude that there is a 'sensible explanation' that is behind it. I continue to be guided by 'physical realism' as I seek to 'make sense' of QM. Or do you feel that QM is beyond physical explanation.

But lets not waist our time with this 'blame game'. Physics and intellectual integrity demand more of us. So I'll dissect my explanation even further and point by point argue how the same principles I used in other explanations enter into this. Of course you can read my papers where the same principles are used, like Planck's Law is an exact mathematical truism, or the Photoelectric Effect without Photons, and many other.

1)HS1 is not a true 'beam-splitter'! This comes from the fact that otherwise you would have for the same photon of certain energy two (manifested) photons (one that is redirected at HS1 and the other that is redirected at S1) of the same equal energy. If you want to insist that the wave of a single photon is split in this fashion, maybe you can explain to me how the Conservation of Energy Law is not violated.

2)If HS1 is not a 'beam-splitter' then it acts more like a 'filter', letting certain photons through undisturbed while interacting with other photons redirecting these. And this happens equally. I simply distinguish between these two types of photons as 'in-phase' (go through) and 'out-phase' (redirected out). No hidden variables, just observed outcomes. I also assume that this difference is due to 'phase shift' of the photon wave, without any other distinction between these photons (perhaps this is due to the way they were ejected from the source with equal probability).

3)The photon that goes through HS1 is not manifested at HS1 and so propagates continuously undisturbed to S1 with no time-delay and no 'phase change'. While the photon that gets redirected at HS1 is manifested and so there is a time-delay and so a 'phase change' for it.

4)For a photon to be redirected, it must interact with the device. When this happens, the photon is 'manifested'. This is based on 'energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely'.

5)When a photon is 'manifested' we have a time-delay because we have 'accumulation before manifestation' of energy. (In blackbody radiation the time for an accumulation of h is h/kT)

6)The time-delay results in a 'phase shift'. Do I need to explain this?

7)Because of the geometry of the apparatus (with the incident and reflected paths at right angles) I take this phase shift to give the opposite (from 'in' to 'out' or whatever other way you wish to describe it).

8)I assume that for HS1 (identical to HS2) the 'reverse effect' occurs when a photon enters from the 'other side'. Thus an 'in-phase' photon from the front going through undisturbed will be redirected instead when the 'in-phase' photon comes from the back side. Now granted, this is an assumption I am making concerning the nature of the devices. But I feel it's a reasonable assumption. It will require, however, some measure of 'fair-mindedness' from you to accept.

Stefan, I don't see this experiment as a wave-interference experiment. Where do you see the 'wave-interference fringes' in the actual experimental results? They only enter in the QM explanations of this experiment. Has this experiment ever been done with single photon emissions? What explains the single photon beam split?

The 'double slit barrier' is a true beam splitter! The wave of a single photon would be split as this passes through the two slits and so interfere. But this is possible because we don't have 'manifestation'. This is according to the principles that 'energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely' and 'accumulation before manifestation'.

This experiment does not involve the issues you raised with the Tonomura experiment. There is no dispute about 'each single emission' resulting in 'one single detection' either at D1 or at D2. The argument I made before holds. These detection devices are so designed to produce a 'beep' or a 'dot' when they absorb the energy of an additional photon. There are no issue of wave-interference, as the photon is a concentrated (and not interfered) beam.

Stefan, I think we should first settle the issues with one experiment before changing the subject to another experiment. I know that this does not address your objections for the 'blocker' experiment. But just concerning the first MZI-experiment that you introduced in our discussion, what are your objections to this explanation, even if it may not be the final answer? Do these 'information-bits' travel the speed of 'light'?

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Stefan,

It is always interesting to hear my thoughts through some other mouth! But these quotes are taken out of context. I could say more about each of these, but keeping to our present discussion I'll address only those made in the current context.

I use 'photon' only as a common reference point. But I think of it as a minimal burst of energy that can be manifested. Now I...

view entire post

Dear Stefan,

It is always interesting to hear my thoughts through some other mouth! But these quotes are taken out of context. I could say more about each of these, but keeping to our present discussion I'll address only those made in the current context.

I use 'photon' only as a common reference point. But I think of it as a minimal burst of energy that can be manifested. Now I accept this is just my view. But just as am not offended by all that believe in elementary particles I also ask that you not be offended by my disbelieve in such. By nature I question everything. And by circumstances I am free to do so! Imagine if we all thought alike! There is no progress in that. Worst yet, there is no Freedom! This unquestioned adherence to what is intellectually comfortable, because it will not be challenged, I think is harmful and undignified for human beings.

You write,

" ...due to your assumptions, a particle splits in two partial waves that interfere with one another, having the same frequency but together only the energy-amount of 1 hv."

No Stefan, if you go back and read my comments this is the objection I had of your description of what happens in the MZI experiment. My view that energy first 'accumulates' before it becomes 'manifested' is logically consistent. This view is more realistic than claiming, as QM explanations claim, that a particle goes through both slits and interferences with itself! But if that's your view, I will accept it as your view. I will not be disagreeable just because we disagree.

You quote me as saying,

" 'Physical realism' convinces me that whatever was happening when the intensity of light was high is also happening when the intensity of light is reduced down to such low levels as 'single photons'. ... But when the beam is a single photon we may no longer see the image projected onto the screen because it is invisible to us. So we use instruments to make that 'photon of light' visible to us."

This accurately reflects my attitude of 'physical realism'. What about this you find objectionable? Do you feel that the experimental phenomena change as we dim the light? Isn't this like saying that the contents of a room change when we turn off the light? And don't we in fact need to use instruments to make visible what is not visible? And isn't it a reasonable position to take that what we then 'see of nature' is what our instruments show us? And for the same experiment if one detector shows us 'waves' while another detector shows us 'particles' shouldn't we consider the possibility that this is due to what the detectors are designed to display than to a change in nature? Isn't this attitude more confluent with our experience than giving 'photons' conscious will to play games with our minds?

I can understand your frustration with me for raising these questions, Stefan, but if we had sensible explanations we would not have this controversy. Should we abandon our search for meaning because it makes us uncomfortable and frustrated? I do ask too many questions! I do so only in the spirit of a common intellectual journey that brings us closer to some answers.

The questions I made in my previous post were earnest and factual. If you choose not to answer these, I understand.

Regards,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

In your reply from May. 12, 2010 you say

“1)HS1 is not a true 'beam-splitter'! This comes from the fact that otherwise you would have for the same photon of certain energy two (manifested) photons (one that is redirected at HS1 and the other that is redirected at S1) of the same equal energy. If you want to insist that the wave of a single photon is split in this...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

In your reply from May. 12, 2010 you say

“1)HS1 is not a true 'beam-splitter'! This comes from the fact that otherwise you would have for the same photon of certain energy two (manifested) photons (one that is redirected at HS1 and the other that is redirected at S1) of the same equal energy. If you want to insist that the wave of a single photon is split in this fashion, maybe you can explain to me how the Conservation of Energy Law is not violated.”

Constantinos, it’s not me who assumes a real splitting of a single Photon/Electron. I outlined my point of view on that to you in a previous post. But you insisted in the splitting of a particle, as you wrote at the fqxi-article “The crystallising Universe” you wrote On Apr. 17, 2010 :

-Start of quote-

Dear Eckard, you write …

“... you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area”

That is correct! The question often asked in connection with the Tonomura 'single emissions' double-slit experiment (1989) is “how could single emitted electrons randomly striking the detection screen form the same typical interference pattern over time?” My answer to this is that the “electron emitted” is not the same as the “electron detected” on the screen. I view the 'electron emitted' as a tiny 'burst of energy' that propagates continuously as a wave and going through both slits at the same time projects onto the screen an interference pattern (invisible by itself). At any one point on the screen the 'accumulated energy' may not have reached a minimum threshold level for it to be manifested. But over time when more emitted electrons radiate the screen in the same pattern, some points on the screen will have reached this threshold and will 'pop', emitting a flash of light. These points will of course be more likely to occur at those places in the interference pattern on the screen that receive the greatest radiation. Over time, these points of light will fill in the typical interference pattern.

-end of quote-

In one of your previous posts here, you explain the possibility for a single particle to go through both slits nonetheless, by arguing

“The 'double slit barrier' is a true beam splitter! The wave of a single photon would be split as this passes through the two slits and so interfere. But this is possible because we don't have 'manifestation'. This is according to the principles that 'energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely' and 'accumulation before manifestation'.”

So you admit that in the double-slit experiment there cannot happen simultaneous impacts per one run! But this constradicts what you wrote to Eckard above, because why should at any point of the screen the ‘accumulated energy’ be such, that only one impact per run is possible? You ‘explained’ this contradiction elsewhere by assuming the screen to be either calibrated homogenous over its entire area or random at each possible place of impact (random in the sense that we do not know what is going on at the screen globally to force only one impact per run locally). Both possibilities have serious problems. For a homogenous calibrated screen one must observe the first impact exactly in the middle of both slits, namely at the area of the interference-maximum. Within that maximum, we have many, many possible points that receive the most energy. For the case that the screen is indeed calibrated homogenously, this would mean, that for at least many of the first runs with that calibrated screen there had to be only impacts at this exact maximum. But the maximum is a larger area than a point. It can be vertically/horizontally long. So you need some random behaviour of the screen to explain where at the maximum the first impact will occur. But for the case that it isn’t true that the screen is calibrated homogenously, you need a much more complex ‘explanation’ why there can only be single impacts per run. But let’s assume for the sake of unknown physical possibilities, that the screen is such, that it only allows one impact per run – but according to the coded probability-distribution in the interference-wave due to its energy-distribution. So the resulting pattern over many runs is coded in the wave, and the cause for a single impact at a certain point on the screen per run is coded by the screen.

Why shouldn’t we have here ‘manifestation’ and in the case of a beam-splitter not? For the double-slit, there is also a redirection of the photon’s way that it must take to find it’s right place according to the delayed-choice variant of the experiment. If you are indeed right and there’s no particle on its way to the measurement-instruments (be it the screen or the which-way-detector) until there is a ‘manifestation’ of ‘it’ there, but there propagates something “continuously as a wave and going through both slits at the same time projects onto the screen an interference pattern”, then for the case of a delayed choice for which measurement-instrument, this invisible interference-pattern must also be projected onto which-way-detectors and the resulting frequency of impacts over many runs should be the same. But that’s not the case and cannot be explained by the designs of the instruments, because according to your theory, they merely accumulate energy until a certain threshold is reached and then they fire.

Coming now back to the MZI to look what all this could mean for the MZI-situation.

The MZI-experiments where INDEED made with single particles. But first, let’s look at the case for a light-beam. For the case, that HS2 is in the setup and you have a solid light-beam, place a lense after HS2 and towards D1 to widen that “something” that one can label with “wave” and goes its way to D1. Place there a screen instead of D1. You will see interference-fringes.

Make the same for runs with single particles. You will see that the same interference-pattern will occur over time. How can you explain this via your assumptions of phase-differences (in-phase and out-phase). Due to your statements, there is no particle split. Neither at HS1 nor at HS2. But for phase-differences you need per definition a reference.

Look again at the case with single particle-runs and HS2 in the setup. You said

“3)The photon that goes through HS1 is not manifested at HS1 and so propagates continuously undisturbed to S1 with no time-delay and no 'phase change'. While the photon that gets redirected at HS1 is manifested and so there is a time-delay and so a 'phase change' for it.”

Independent from the individual phase-shifts of such particles and the mode of operation of HS2, the particles cannot mix their phases to build interference, because, according to your assumptions, there’s only one particle per run in the setup. The lense cannot explain the occurrence of interference at the screen. Because without a lense, we nonetheless can detect interference by lengthen or shorten one of the arms of the interferometer continously over the range of Lambda. For this operation, the frequency of impacts at the detectors changes drastically due to phase-shifts. But if you now say, that there is nonetheless a real split of a particle at HS2, you run into the same problems as I described above with the classical double-slit-situation in combination with a delayed choice.

I really don’t think that all this can be explained locally. Phase-shifts are o.k. in my opinion, but I don’t think that they do act locally-deterministic. The information bits are, in my opinion, entangled via Qbits and are correlated with each other and spread through the setup by entanglement of correlated superpositions with the same speed a particle would do. But this information is not mutually exclusive to mutually exclusive measurements, but is only filtered by a certain measurement and contains a random element, that forbids the prediction of a single outcome for a single run a priori. So I do not assume a single photon to be splitted, but a one-bit-alternative to be superposed with another one-bit-alternative and therefore gets entangled and spreads a probability-space.

Maybe, here we could have some points in common, except that I do not use an energetical picture, but an informational theoretic one.

Greetings,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan,

There is enough misunderstanding of both our positions to fill several posts! So let me try to clarify some of my views a little better. It's not easy when we are dealing with such 'ethereal subject'!

First, let me just say outright that I don't believe on 'impacts' just as I don't believe on 'elementary particles'. Rather, I believe on 'radiance'!

When I write...

view entire post

Dear Stefan,

There is enough misunderstanding of both our positions to fill several posts! So let me try to clarify some of my views a little better. It's not easy when we are dealing with such 'ethereal subject'!

First, let me just say outright that I don't believe on 'impacts' just as I don't believe on 'elementary particles'. Rather, I believe on 'radiance'!

When I write 'photons' etc. I do not mean 'particles'. I use this term in the vernacular. At best, in the context of the double slit experiment, a 'photon' means to me a 'minimal burst of energy' that can be 'manifested'. When this energy propagates in space, it does so continuously as a wave. But when this amount of energy is 'manifested' (observed or measured or in some other way interacts) it appears in discrete form (amount) which can be referred to as a 'photon'.

When I speak of HS1 as being more of a 'filter' than a 'beam splitter', I am forced to this view because if we were to 'split the beam' of one photon, since each half now will be 'manifested' at S1 and at S2 (since the direction changes so there is an interaction) we will have 'two photons of same energy as the original photon'. I see this as violating conservation of energy. On the other hand, a 'single photon wave' split by a double slit does not present this difficulty because each of these does not become 'manifested' on the detection screen directly. Rather the combined interfered wave radiates the entire screen and this amount of energy only becomes 'manifested' locally at a point on the screen as one and complete 'photon'. We don't have 'simultaneous flashes' therefore.

This 'manifestation' of a 'single photon' for each 'single emission' at the screen (seen as a 'flash') may be the result of the design of the detection apparatus whereby one additional 'photon energy' absorbed over the entire screen forces that amount of energy discharge at some point on the screen. This will occur more probably at those areas of the screen which have received more radiation from the 'source'. This view is more analogous to 'lightning flash' of an electrically charged cloud, than my original and very misleading metaphor to 'pop corn'. In both cases, however, my basic idea that there is an 'accumulation before manifestation' is well exemplified. This idea, together with the idea that energy 'propagates continuously but interacts discretely' I believe underpin well the logic of my argument for these experiments. I agree with you that this view may not explain the MZI 'blocker' experiments. Perhaps something else is going on with these. I don't know!

Stefan, this is a 'provisional view'. I am not fully satisfied with it. But at least it does help explain those experiments that I am familiar with: the classic Young experiments, the Tonomura single emissions experiments, the double slit experiments with detectors at the slits, and even the MZI experiment that you brought up. But I admit I don't have an explanation based on this view of the 'blocker' MZI experiments in your more recent posts. These I still am thoroughly perplexed over. But I still believe that whatever is going on with these experiments should 'make sense'. It's my attitude of 'physical realism' that I bring into my thinking on this. I don't understand many 'smoke and mirrors' magical tricks either, as well as many mathematical card tricks. But these don't lead me to believe that something 'weird' is going on! I believe the same is true for QM. These may be elaborate conceptual mathematical and technological 'smoke and mirror' results. I keep an open mind, just I keep a very questioning attitude.

Stefan I would love to engage you in a proper discussion of your views on 'information-bits', etc. I respect your ideas, but I just can't make sense of them. I have the same objections and difficulties with these as I have often expressed about QM attempts at 'physical explanations'. I should spend more time to consider each of these (QM and your explanation) but I am afraid that they may begin to make sense to me! Just as I know QM makes 'perfect sense' to all physicists and your explanation makes 'perfect sense' to you. What one intellectually works with acquire familiarity and therefore 'physicality' to make these appear 'real'. I purposely resist this.

I need to hold on to my 'common sense' criteria and insist on 'physical realism' to physical explanations that any thoughtful person will understand. If Physics is to reveal what IS, it must be in the form that common man can follow and believe!

Stefan, you raise some very important points about variations of the MZI experiments. I don't have any answers for you on these. I am still digesting the information you have provided on this. Thank you!

Regards,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Stefan,

I am still intellectually wrestling with a 'physical explanation' to the latest variations of the double slit experiments you brought up. Thank you for doing so. My thoughts on this are fluent and likely to change as I seek a consistent view to all of these effects. There is much that I don't know and I appreciate all the information you are providing me as 'food for...

view entire post

Dear Stefan,

I am still intellectually wrestling with a 'physical explanation' to the latest variations of the double slit experiments you brought up. Thank you for doing so. My thoughts on this are fluent and likely to change as I seek a consistent view to all of these effects. There is much that I don't know and I appreciate all the information you are providing me as 'food for thought'.

I agree with you that my 'provisional explanation' of the MZI experiment is not satisfactory. I especially don't like the idea of treating 'single photons' (again thought of in the way I described in previous posts, and not as a 'particles' ). This goes against my attitude of physical realism that asks that the same explanation and the same view be used for the same phenomena, whether large or small scale. Not following this attitude in my 'provisional explanation' has forced me into a position I rather not be. So, if you allow for some intellectual honesty and adjustment to my thinking I propose the following changes in my view:

The 'interaction of energy' that leads to 'manifestation of energy' is one whereby some amount of energy is absorbed or emitted. When energy propagates, there is no 'manifestation'. I like to also extend this and say that when that propagation of energy is 'redirected' thee is no 'manifestation'. Since there is no 'absorption' or 'emission' of energy. Thus, correcting my previous view, when a light beam is reflected from a mirror there is no 'interaction' in the sense described above. My physical explanation to the first MZI experiment has been revised therefore to the following:

I am making the following assumptions as to the operation of the devices used:

1)The HS1 and HS2 devices do in each case 'split the light beam' (regardless of the intensity) sending half through and reflecting the other half.

2)In reverse, these devices do not split the light beam but let the beam pass.

My revised but 'still provisional explanation':

Without the HS2 in place: The beam of light is split at HS1, half going to S1 and the other half reflected onto S2. At S1, the beam is reflected by the mirror and detected by D2. At S2, the other half of the light beam is reflected and it is detected by D1. Both of these detectors, therefore, will register half of the original beam.

With the HS2 in place: The beam of light is split at HS1, as before, half of the beam going onto S1, reflected there onto HS2, and the other half of the beam doing the same going to S2 and reflected there. Both halves of the beam therefore meet at HS2. At this point, the half of the beam coming from S2 and going straight through to D1 may be acting as a 'block' preventing any part of the beam coming from S1 to reach D2 and redirecting it to D1 (this is like having a detector at one of the slits in a Young experiment which changes the interference pattern on the screen).The outcome will be that both halves reach D1 and are detected there, while no beam reaches D2.

With the 'block' in place between HS1 and S2: That part of the beam from HS1 going to S2 will obviously be preventing from continuing. So this is like having a beam half the original intensity reaching HS2 and being split there in half. So D1 will detect ¼ of the original beam and D2 will detect the other ¼ of the original beam. Of course if we remove the 'block', we're are back to the previous situation with the whole beam detected at D1 and no beam detected at D2.

That there is interference displayed when a lens is placed in front of HS2 is no surprise since we do have two light beams coming together. In a spatially concentrated form, we can't see the interference, but when the beam is spread out we do.

The same explanation holds when the intensity of light is lowered down to the intensity of a single 'photon-wave'. But what does change, however, is the more sophisticated methods of detection. These instruments, in my view, take the whole 'photon-wave' projected onto the screen and 'focalize' it to a single flash or a dot to make it visible. This is the same as with the Tonomura experiment we discussed earlier.

I have no doubt that this is an incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation, Stefan. And that there are other experiments that my tell another story to this.

Best regards,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

"I need to clarify one point regarding the operation of the HS devises. If a light beam enters such a devise from the other side, does it get split?"

Yes!

"I assume that a light beam passes through the devise when it enters from the reverse side. Is that correct?"

No! One part passes, the other part is reflected.

You may like to read more about...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

"I need to clarify one point regarding the operation of the HS devises. If a light beam enters such a devise from the other side, does it get split?"

Yes!

"I assume that a light beam passes through the devise when it enters from the reverse side. Is that correct?"

No! One part passes, the other part is reflected.

You may like to read more about these experiments at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-
tester

and

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harr
ison/MachZehnder/MachZehnder.html

I have not checked these sources for freedom of errors, i just googled them because i only have german technical literature.

You wrote

"1) We place the blocker between HS1 and S2. Each detector D1 and D2 will equally detect 25% of the original light beam.

2) We place the blocker between HS1 and S1. Each detector D1 and D2 will equally detect 25% of the original light beam.

Is that right?"

Yes!

"But the results for case 2) just don't make sense. If the beam coming to HS2 from the reverse side is not split, couldn't we just remove HS2 entirely in that case since it now becomes irrelevant? This result seems to contradict the operation of HS2 . It now becomes a 'beam splitter' for a beam coming to it from the reverse side."

HS2 is not irrelevant, because also from the reverse side it splits the beam.

QM explains what happens in the MZI with single photons as follows:

At HS1, the 'photon's possible ways get superimposed. At HS2, the partial waves' possible ways get superimposed again. So there are two partial beams each for each side of HS2 that can interfere at these sides with one another. Due to their different 'histories' concerning their sustained phase-shifts, there are different results possible at the detectors.

For the case that there is no blocker in the setup, the phase-differences between the two beams that leave HS2 towards D1, is zero. Therefore there is constructive interference at D1. The phase-difference between the two beams that leave HS2 towards D2 is lambda/2 (Pi) and therefore there is a maximum of destructive interference behind that side of HS2.

If there's a blocker in the setup, equal in which path, the phase-differences between each pair of beams behind the two sides of HS2 is constantly lambda/4, what means that there is a probability of 50% for each detector to click in each run.

"What happens if we had removed HS1 entirely, kept HS2 and simply reduced the beam coming from the 'source' to half of the intensity of the light beam and directed it to S1 and then on a separate run to S2? Will in the last case one detector D1 record the beam while the other D2 detector not? Or in both cases both detectors will record equally for each of these runs? And if we put a cover over that part of the apparatus where the beam source and the HS1 are located so that we were entirely unaware of the source of the light beam, wont the results of these experiments (since we don't know if HS1 exists or not) contradict what we know happens at HS2?"

If you put a cover over your mentioned part, this will in no way influence the outcomes at the detectors. The outcomes with HS1 removed are such, as if you had removed HS2. Means, for the light-beam directed to S2 and with HS1 removed, the detectors D1 and D2 have each a probability of 50% to fire. The same is true for the light-beam being directed towards S1 and with HS1 removed. It does not depend on the knowledge of the observer.

Greetings,

Stefan

view post as summary

Thanks for the explanation Stefan. Much appreciated.

So for the MZI experiments we have:

1)Both HS1 and HS2 devises equally split the beam, whether the beam is coming from the front or from the reverse side.

2)For runs with HS2 removed, D1 detects 50% of the beam and D2 detects 50% of the beam

3)For runs with HS2 in place, D1 detects 100% of the beam while D2 detects 0%...

view entire post

Thanks for the explanation Stefan. Much appreciated.

So for the MZI experiments we have:

1)Both HS1 and HS2 devises equally split the beam, whether the beam is coming from the front or from the reverse side.

2)For runs with HS2 removed, D1 detects 50% of the beam and D2 detects 50% of the beam

3)For runs with HS2 in place, D1 detects 100% of the beam while D2 detects 0% of the beam

4)Placing a blocker between HS1 and S2, D1 detects 25% of the beam and D2 detects 25% of the beam

5)Placing a blocker between HS1 and S1, D1 detects 25% of the beam and D2 detects 25% of the beam.

The question is: explain the results for run 3).

Stefan, I admit this does not seem to fit my explanation of the single emissions Tonomura double slit experiment that is based on 'accumulation before manifestation' and on energy 'propagates continuously but interacts discretely'. The only 'accumulation of energy' that I see in the apparatus is at the detection devises D1 and D2. But for this experiment these devises play a neutral role. This, however, does not invalidate my explanation which aims to show how individual 'dots' at the detection screen fill-in over time the same interference pattern.

My derivation of Planck Law as being an exact mathematical truism convinces me that these ideas are true and able to reconcile the 'wave-particle' duality and give QM a more physical interpretation.

I think something else may be going on with this Stefan. For this type of experiment, the main feature seems to be the operation of the HS devises that 'split the beam' and the mirror reflectors S that redirect the light beam. Perhaps there is a wave phase shift that happens when light is split or redirected that could account for the experimental outcomes.

It would be interesting to know what happens to the experimental outcome if we eliminated 'beam redirection' and instead had two identical beam generators both directing a light beam of equal intensity into the HS2 device (as if the beams were coming from S1 and from S2). I like to know how the light beams get split and redirected at HS2 and what the detectors D1 and D2 will be registering.

If there is a difference in the experimental outcome then this will pin down the experimental effect to what happens as HS1 and at S1 and S2 with the beam phase. My guess is that when a beam is reflected or split, there is a phase change. But how and what kind, I don't know. That after the original light beam gets split at HS1, it is made 'whole again' at HS2. The fact that it is D1 that receives 100% of the beam seems to suggest this, since this is in the same original direction of the beam.

Best,

Constantinos

view post as summary

Dear Constantinos,

asking what happens physically to produce the rules that account for quantum optics and if they are empirical or mathematically derived are interesting questions and show that you are still searching for mechanisms which could support your claims being in agreement with observation.

I nonetheless think that you will not find a description that fits all experimental...

view entire post

Dear Constantinos,

asking what happens physically to produce the rules that account for quantum optics and if they are empirical or mathematically derived are interesting questions and show that you are still searching for mechanisms which could support your claims being in agreement with observation.

I nonetheless think that you will not find a description that fits all experimental data and at the same time is in agreement with your claims.

I am not firm with the Michelson Interferometer, so i cannot describe the working of it. You had to ask a quantum optics physicist and see, if his analysis is in agreement with your claims.

You ask why light propagates in space anyway. This is the same question as asking why 'particles' are summed up to matter in space, but seem to operate out of ordinary space in MZI-Experiments. I have no answers to that except, that at the level of single 'particles'/'waves', there reign correlations and only limited classical cause-effect-rules. The cause-effect-rules at the MZI-level, in my opinion must be thought of as mathematical relations with no time-dependence between them, no time-reference to our understanding of time as propagating from causes to effects. The single instruments in all the experiments, in my opinion, can be thought of as mathematical operators, that can be inserted and the results at the right side of the equations therefore logically must change.

In my opinion, one cannot explain our discussed experiments *only* via classical, mechanical cause-effect-relations. Think of delayed-choice-experiments.

Again, i cannot comment on your points 1) - 3), because i am not a physicist. The only thing i can remark is, that for example the beam-splitters, independent of the question how they 'really' work, let pass 'photons' randomly or redirect them randomly if they are 50/50 splitters. I think this can be proven mathematically by a proper analysis of the resulting bit-pattern (1 = impact, 0 = no impact). Denying this, means, in my opinion, to deny the whole lines of reasoning about statistics in maths itself.

If you would indeed be right and nature behaves in a strictly mechanical, deterministic manner by accumulating energy in all corners of the universe, before manifesting it, the consequences would be drastically. Not because of your accumulation-rule, but because the whole clockwork of the universe would be merely strictly deterministic.

This would mean, that also my own brain-activities and yours would be strictly deterministic and develop according to their cause-effect-chains continously over time. Therefore mine and yours thoughts and all i and you have written here was predetermined by the past states of myriads of energy-exchanges byond the treshold of manifestation at the time of the big-bang. The weird thing with a strictly deterministic view of the whole is, that if it would be true, it doesn't guarantee that the evolving brains are determined to draw the most physical realistic conclusions about nature, or even conclusions that are true and no nonsense. Means, if we are fully predetermined, all our lines of reasoning could be absolutely meaningless - surprisingly except the conclusion that we are fully predetermined!

I think, the same problem holds for your assumption, that beyond our actual knowledge about the workings of or instruments there could be a local-realistic, non-random explanation of these in combination with the experimental results. I think the main message of the quantum (the meaning where no meaning is found) is, that it tells us that a strictly deterministic description of nature always must end up in absurdities! Because we always could claim, that our knowledge about the facts behind the events is not precise enough. What is the speed of light? With how many decimals it is precisely defined by nature - independend of our theories? With finitely or infinitely many? How many decimals has the momentum of a particle, the velocity, the position - the energy? Is it all infinitely exact in its working?

Greetings,

Stefan

view post as summary

Dear Stefan,

...many good points you raise! It's an invitation to elaborate a little on my views.

You write,

"...you are still searching for mechanisms which could support your claims being in agreement with observation".

"If you would indeed be right and nature behaves in a strictly mechanical, deterministic manner "

My view of the world is not 'mechanistic'....

view entire post

Dear Stefan,

...many good points you raise! It's an invitation to elaborate a little on my views.

You write,

"...you are still searching for mechanisms which could support your claims being in agreement with observation".

"If you would indeed be right and nature behaves in a strictly mechanical, deterministic manner "

My view of the world is not 'mechanistic'. It does not involve 'matter in motion' obeying 'mathematical equations'. My view is not at all 'deterministic' either. No fear that all that is happening (our very thoughts and this conversation) are all predetermined and therefore inconsequential. That we can't help being and doing what we do. I believe in personal responsibility.

I do believe on Free Will and see Freedom as the Essence of Human Being! My intellectual aversion to Modern Physics is in large part based on this attitude. QM asks us to embrace a world in conflict with our senses. It asks for intellectual capitulation to superior minds that have power and intelligence but may lack wisdom.

I further believe that mathematical formalism cannot and will not tell us what IS. All mathematics provides are 'logical certainties' but not 'truth'. But beyond the limitations of mathematics to tell us what the universe is, we are also limited in that we can only know our own experience of the world, but not the world as IS. So in physics too, we can know our 'measurements' and our 'observations', but not the underlying reality.

I believe the essence of physics is 'measurement'. And the application of mathematics to physics, therefore, should provide mathematical identities that describe the interactions of measurements. This I show in Planck's Law is a Mathematical Identity.

To ask for a view of the world and for 'physical explanations' that 'make sense' and 'have meaning' is not asking for a mechanical/deterministic world, Stefan. It only asks that we understand the world in 'human terms', using ideas that come from our experience and that connect our thinking and reasoning with our lives.

These experiences could even be drawn from how we understand our human interactions and how we understand the evolving of history and of civilizations, not just our material experience. Certainly civilizations do not rise and fall by following predetermined 'trajectories' laid out by some mathematical formula. If you want some vague characterization of my view, it would be closer to Hegel. I was greatly influenced by his Phenomenology of Mind. I believe in 'dialectics' rather than in 'mechanics'.

At the same time, you surely agree that there are real 'cause-effect' at play in the world that in part at least we can trace out, even if that happens after the fact (but sometimes before the fact as well). But we don't want to accept the view that in the world 'things just happen' with no rhyme and reason. We can't base a rational life on such a sink hole of spirit. It leads to chaos and madness. We must opt for Reason at every turn of humanity.

This is what I am asking of physics too, Stefan. Since physics claims to provide fundamental truth about the universe, it has a profound effect on our thinking and attitudes generally. It is playing the same role in our lives as religion did in ancient times (excluding the Greeks!) and medieval times.

I believe that it is possible to have a view of the world that 'makes sense' and a mathematical formalism based on it. I see these two aspects of physics as distinct. Strong intellects can push mathematical formalism to the extreme and produce relevant formulas used to calculate and predict experiments. This does not in itself validate anything about the 'physical view' these results are based on. I ask that physics be based on a physical view that makes sense and is confluent with our experience, and not opposed to our lives.

You will argue that such a view is not possible. That the counter-intuitive world presented by QM is 'how nature IS'. To that, I say we can never know what IS, but only how we know and understand our measurements and observations to be of what IS. These are 'human terms'. We can expect a 'human theory' of our world.

Beyond just this attitude of 'physical realism', I argue through mathematical derivations that this is possible. I know I have listed a few such results in previous posts to you, but I include these here for the larger audience. (if there should be any!)

The Interaction of Measurement

'let there be h': An Existance Argument for Planck's Constant.

'the meaning of psi': An Interpretation of Schoedinger's Equation

Prime 'physis' and the Mathematical Derivation of Prime Law

The Photoelectric Effect without Photons

A 'Planck-like' Characterization of Exponential Functions

A Time-dependent Local Representation of Energy

The Temperature of Radiation

A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment

Plankc's Law is an Exact Mathematical Identity

Best,

Constantinos

view post as summary

John, you write

That's been my argument with Constantinos. The wave is its own reality and only collapses to a point when hitting mass.

I had no idea John that we were having an argument. You should have told me so that I could do my part. Let me respond.

What exactly is this 'wave that is its own reality'? Is this the 'probability density wave' of QM or some other wave? And...

view entire post

John, you write

That's been my argument with Constantinos. The wave is its own reality and only collapses to a point when hitting mass.

I had no idea John that we were having an argument. You should have told me so that I could do my part. Let me respond.

What exactly is this 'wave that is its own reality'? Is this the 'probability density wave' of QM or some other wave? And how exactly does it 'collapse to a point'. Your analogy to a soap bubble bursting and leaving a dot on the wall does not answer these questions. The dot that we see is the bubble surface mass that once the air escapes from inside the bubble condenses to a dot. Is your wave spherical and what escapes from the inside to cause it to collapse?

I have no doubt that your wave has reality for you. Just as I have no doubt that 'curled up dimensions' and 'parallel universes' and 'backward causation' and 'time travel' all have reality to the theoretical physicists that work with such concepts. And as mathematical concepts certainly I agree they do have reality. But they have no physical reality. You can argue that when you work and think and reason with an idea, no matter how abstract it may be, it acquires a 'physical reality' to the intellect that experiences it, just by familiarity if for no other reason.

But there is a danger I see with all this. Great intellects have the ability to create universes so abstract and so removed from experience, and be so calibrated to 'resemble the world', that can be taken as 'real'. We are asked to suspend judgment and just believe. This is what I call 'The Metaphysics of Physics'. It is a repeat of many past moments in the intellectual history of mankind. Every religion in the past claimed to 'explain the universe' and to 'know eternal truth'. And while the narrative doesn't make much sense to anyone else, the 'high priests' assure us that's how the universe works. That we should just believe and have faith. There is a call for similar faith now by Modern Physics. We are asked to 'suspend disbelieve' and accept 'theoretical revelations' which are counter to our lives. That these 'scriptures' are written in the language of mathematics and have their own internal consistency make these claims even more difficult to refute.

Truth must be accessible to everyone. Only because it is the 'truth of our lives, our existence'. Believing in anything else is believing in a false god, in symbols, images and idolatry. Such false believe may have a good narrative but does not 'support life'. My call to 'physical realism' is a call to 'find meaning where meaning is not found' in physics. I believe this is possible! In a limited way my work shows it is possible. We need not believe in 'time travel' and 'curled up dimensions' to 'know our world'!

Constantinos

view post as summary