Quantum Quackery Cracked? - Double Slit Experiment

Actually telescopes support the "supposition" whatever supposition you are referring to.
"'tis frustrating isn't it?":)
 
Last edited:
I think QQ's point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the apparent visually smooth continuity of a star 200MM LY away from us as we move around, observing it from the Earth, implies a number of photons being emitted per second that vastly exceeds what we calculate it to be locally at the star. Of course it's almost 3AM and I'm too tired to do the math...time for bed
 
RJBeery said:
I think QQ's point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the apparent visually smooth continuity of a star 200MM LY away from us as we move around, observing it from the Earth, implies a number of photons being emitted per second that vastly exceeds what we calculate it to be locally at the star. Of course it's almost 3AM and I'm too tired to do the math...time for bed
Click to expand...

yeah you got it in one sentance....congrats!:)

Of course we can not understand the results of the double slit experiment given that the model we are using for light and EMR is fundamentally flawed and confused. [just an opinion]
 
Last edited:
Well QQ, I don't know if your objection has merit or not although I have heard it before. One thing I think you are neglecting is that just because we can ascribe dimensions to the wavelength of a photon that does not mean that 2 photons cannot be arbitrarily "close together". Bosons such as photons differ from fermions in this way. That being said, if I get bored maybe I'll run the numbers later to see if things roughly jibe.
 
RJBeery said:
Well QQ, I don't know if your objection has merit or not although I have heard it before. One thing I think you are neglecting is that just because we can ascribe dimensions to the wavelength of a photon that does not mean that 2 photons cannot be arbitrarily "close together". Bosons such as photons differ from fermions in this way. That being said, if I get bored maybe I'll run the numbers later to see if things roughly jibe.
Click to expand...

Thanks for at least taking my complaint seriously enough to consider it.
I do wonder however whether it is the length or the width of the theoretical photon that is in question?
 
QQ: are you asking about the length and width of the theoretical particle?
It's easier to consider the energy and velocity, rather than the dimensions of a "packet" of waves. Ask Erwin Schrodinger--he could see the problems with wavepacket models.

I mean, the guy is dead now, but he did write a few things down, and gave a few lectures.
 
May be a recap of an earlier post will clarify my concerns.

Quantum Quack said:
The problem as I see it is that if we subscribe to a photon as having dimensions [ width, length etc] we can note that a finite number of photons must be emmitted from a star in every wave at t=0.
This means that as the wave expands the distance between these photons along the circumference of the wave gets larger so that by the time the wave has propagated 200 million Lys a photon particle would actually be damn hard to find along the wave front as the distance of separation would be huge.

Of course experience will tell us that no matter where we place our receptor if the light is upon it a theoretical photon particle must be present, and this contradicts the use of finite dimensions for our photon particle, unless of course you want to allow it to change it's dimensions as per distance from source. [ as you will find that any where along the wave front light will be present on our receptor]

And if the particle has NO dimension and is in fact zero dimensional then for all intents and purposes it could be considered as an imaginary artifact of a wave which of course the double slit experiment refutes.

So which is it particle or wave? or dare I suggest the outrageous and put forward that it could be neither!
Click to expand...
 
The electromagnetic field is today considered as a geometric structure, a bundle of circular fibers at every point (say along the path followed by a photon). A photon is a 'perturbation' of these fibers in one dimension that displaces all the circles. The fibers are all elements of the U(1) symmetry group--that's "the circle" to us ordinary folks. That in not so many words is what a "particle as a perturbation of the field" means, I think.

We (as did Maxwell) can visualise the electric part of this field perturbation as a sine wave, the magnetic part is another sine wave at right angles to the electric part. The 'waves' are seen or measured because the circles are displaced/rotated in a regular way.

How this geometry is related to the spherical propagation of wavefronts is a little difficult to grasp. So is how a particle model fits into either geometry. But there it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top