Hi all,
Hooray!! Thanks for bringing some reason and logic to the table, Montec.
The problem is, that the "hard-core believers" don't want to hear about alleged problems with the equipment they bought. "But, the salesman
promised!"
I have brought this up before, and these facts will likely still be "ignored".
Ideal equations, and idealized experiments (based on self-invoked definitions) can NEVER "prove" anything, other than the faulty confirmation of a bad idea.
There is some value in a Science of "what we can measure". This does not mean "from what we can infer from our assumptions".
The "photon" that is claimed to "disappear" can never be shown to really be there, "for sure". These are just coincidence counts, and to say this is not "statistical", is naive. You can't change your dance, while singing the same song. If you believe that the "photon only interferes with itself", after the "particle" goes through both slits, then you must also believe that is what is happening is the DCDSE.
Taking a 702.2 nm laser, and frequency doubling it into 2 beams of 351.1 nm ea., is STILL just ONE "photon", to the standard QM explanation, if it was EVER just "1 photon". That is why they are able to claim that a "photon" can only interfere with itself. If these are "new photons", then ALL "photons" have the ability to interfere. If wave "probabilities" are part of the QM "photon" package, and these probabilities (somehow) are real, and
can INTERACT and combine, the so must ALL "photons", in this interpretation.
BTW, unless this is from an "elven spectrum", 351nm is not "green", and in fact, not even in the visible spectrum, GE.
If you want to include the human concept of "time" into your model, this is fine. It is a key part of our consciousness, and perception. However, you must remember that it is "continuous";
all of normal consciousness is contained within the flow of time (meaning
all of us as a group). You can not have "preferred time" in the same vein as a "preferred reference". This means you can not have areas that are not included in the definition, like "other dimensions", "time reversal", and a "vacuum" of time or space (nothing).
The problem is that we can NOT measure anything that is beating faster than a coupled E..M wave. This is what we are using to measure with. All EM waves are a flow of energy. This flow of energy is part of our definition of "time", as it applies to our consciousness of it "passing by". This is EXACTLY WHY the statement that the "photon" does not experience "time" is logical: nothing can
measure that time between beats (or phase, cycles..).
However, also because of this ABSOLUTE definition of "time" relating to the flow of energy, then we must also accept that any sub-division or multiplication (harmonics) of this flow, especially when divided into separate paths, and this separation creates NEW FREQUENCIES (beats) from the converging/diverging geometry of the interaction zone, is ALSO a measure of the "passage of time".
You can NOT arbitrarily go back and RE-MEASURE SIMULTANEOUSLY traveled paths, and treat them as if they were in independent time frames. This is treating ONE event (from the SPLITTER) as TWO separate phenomenon, and relying on "instantaneous" communication to explain it. This might be acceptable, if you also then include ALL of the oscillators "in between" the 2 separate paths, but this is not done by standard QM.
The bottom line: IF you wish to explore the concept of "single photons", you MUST find them WITHOUT the flow of time/energy between the "peaks" that get counted. The experimenter will have you believe that the "separation in time" between peaks ASSURES us that there is only ONE "photon" in the given area. Sounds VERY logical, and believable, but it is not. IF there is TIME between "photons", then there MUST also be a flow of a "quanta of energy" between them. Now you see the fatal flaw: "photons" between "photons", energy between energy, time between time; it doesn't matter how you want to describe this. All of the data from these experiments SHOW this clearly: there is never a "zero photon" count, at ANY point measured. This is just an assumption, based on statistics, and "averaging".
The laser is incapable of producing single photons. They produce masses of entangled, superimposed, coherent "photons". The term "entangled" just means that these "separate" frequencies are connected. How are they connected? By "threads" of energy flow, with differing frequencies than the equipment is tuned to receive, or measure.
If an entangled state is created in the resonator of a laser, then we KNOW that they are emitted at 180 deg., or, in OPPOSITE directions (on the same plane). This strictly means that these entangled photons do NOT leave the laser at the same time. Only one of them gets an "immediate" pass to exit; the other must be reflected (with loss), and "mixed" with another "odd ball" (off-resonant) quanta, and then allowed to pass the narrow (resonant) gate.
This is why I combine the 2 principles (entanglement & superposition) as an "inverse duality". The superposed "photons" MUST leave at the same time, with just one "hall pass". The teacher (the theory) does NOT know when this happens:it is INDISTINGUISHABLE. Entangled "photons" MUST NOT
leave (the laser) at the same time, because of the nature of spontaneous emission, and the geometry of the resonator.
When you expose the "hidden variables", you get a picture that is quite different than the QM interpretation.
IF our entangled "photons" do NOT leave at the same time, but are (by definition) CREATED at the same time, then we have DIFFERENT optical path lengths, as well as differing "time of flight". If you account for these hidden parameters, you will find that any interpretation that says that we can "change the outcome" of the "past", by "looking" after the fact, is quite absurd. Just another faulty assumption by QM.
The real failure of QM, is in having an understanding (ability to predict) of the reason for the difference in Spontaneous, and Stimulated Emission. We KNOW that entanglement does NOT happen "every time", and is (so far) unpredictable. This is WHY the DCDSE must be ran "1000's" of times to get the results they want. That is the nature of a statistical explanation, NOT a Fundamental one.
There is nothing in QM theory that says we can not have BOTH of these phenomenon at the same time: a "normal photon" superimposed onto
one of an entangled pair. You can imagine what this does to the concept of "coincidence counts". You can also see that it will automatically include the "appearance"/perception that a "simultaneous" arrival (coincident count) happened, even though there is no way to discriminate between measuring "two halves of one" vs "two ones"; just that we get "two clicks".
When we get two clicks, we do NOT know if they left at the same time, and traveled the
same path, or different paths. Nor do we know if our "simultaneous arrival" happened by quanta that left at different times, via different paths. This determines what kind of resonant interaction takes place.
In order to "measure" a difference (beat), you have to have different paths. If you have the same paths, and you have "monochromatic" light, and in phase (left @ same time) waves, then you ONLY can get the "constructive/destructive" modes of resonance. There are NO BEATS in this wave; the only CHANGE that takes place, is the "amplitude". This is equivalent to "intensity"; this is equivalent to "how many photons" are present. This is a special case of "self-phase modulation", where the new frequencies generated combine to form new (identical) "wholes", in superposition. This increase in intensity is what causes our change in refractive index, and causes self-focusing of the beam. You can see the "cascade" dynamics that will happen, and ultimately arrive at the "critical level" where filamentation takes place. Unless something steps in to disperse.. NOW you can have your "quasi-monochromatic" beams' REAL effect of a slight change in frequency being needed to produce the "slower spreading" of a "coherent" beam. This is why we did not see filamentation, and WLSC; it is NOT due to an extraordinary increase in the "power" of the beams we are using, it is in their "quality". As a wave approaches "absolute single frequency", it also approaches "infinite intensity". This may make no sense, but it IS current theory. Of course, an absolute single frequency would have to have an "infinite time" to exist in, so, it is better to leaves these as "ideals".
The result is, the "center frequency" of a varying frequency wave-packet, is
approximately linear; this "chirping" MIMICS the single frequency slope, and exponentially increases "intensity" at the center of the wave (transverse and longitudinal). If we "shorten" the wave-packet (in time), we increase this effect; if we produce a "tighter bandwidth" (less change in frequency/more monochromatic) we also increase this effect. Both of these methods are employed in the "single photon" experiments, which is the modern "twist" on the old concept. However, they are not "accounted for" in the postulate; we need to "un-hide" these variables.
If you start the experiment with "one photon", you can make NO real measurement without another "photon" to compare with. This has always been the case, and our limitation. That is why the introduction of the frequency comb was so important to our "access" to this kind of accuracy. Before them, there were just a few "theme park" sized set-ups, with numerous KNOWN frequencies "chained" together by their beats, to produce a "referenced" measurement. (they link to the lower ranges, where real "counting" can take place)
The Revolution has already started. The "dark ages" of Science will be illuminated with high technological advancments, leading to a completely new benchmark of accuracy, leading to a Fundamental Theory. Every rotton tooth will be extracted from the mouth of Quantum Mechanics, much to the dismay of those who paid for these "teeth".
ciao,
T.Roc
ps.
QUOTE
Similarly, when we have a double-slit [see Fig. 3], the photons, with one exception, never arrive at the screen at the same time. (The exception is the spot directly in front of the middle of the two slits.)
A Logical Interpretation of a Delayed-Choice, Quantum Eraser Experiment
<link>I have talked about this "ordering" of wavelengths that is due to dispersion of frequencies in a medium, many times. C2 seemed to catch this once, and then dropped it. This is why "path length" alone, doesn't explain the phenomenon.
+ 
= 
I sense some negative phase emotions are entangling here!
You must have me mixed up with some other elf.
week/months.
