Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> But seriously, for there to be an interference pattern, something has to 
> >> interfere with something else, right?
> > 
> >   If the photon is a wavefront which traverses from the emitter to the
> > detector, passing throug the slits splits it into two wavefronts, which
> > interfere with each other. When the wavefront collides with the detector,
> > it collapses back into a particle.

> But it doesn't work that way. If you look to see which slit the particle 
> passed through, you find out that it only went through one. You never, ever 
> see it go through both slits.

  But if you observe it going only through one of the slits, the interference
pattern doesn't appear, IIRC.

  Wouldn't that be kind of evidence that when the interference pattern appears,
it did to through both slits? When someone forces it to go through only one of
the slits (by observing it) the interference pattern disappears.

> You basically never see a wave or measure a 
> wave. You always measure a particle, even as the whatever goes through the 
> slits, even *after* the whatever goes through the slits.

  But does the interference pattern remain if the particle is measured?
If it does, then *that* would be indicative that the pattern is not
appearing because the photon behaved like a wave.

> >   I'm not saying that is what happens. I'm just saying it's exactly as
> > plausible as eg. a particle being in many places at the same time or
> > affecting another particle instantly.

> Plausible? Yes. Confirmed by experimental evidence? No. Contradicted by 
> experimental evidence? Yes.

  Contradicted how? "We forced the photon to pass through only one of the
slits and what do you know, the interference pattern disappeared." That
would be confirming evidence, not contradicting one.

> I'm just stating what the guys who study this say. You're trying to tell me 
> it sounds absurd.

  I'm not saying it sounds absurd. I'm saying that the argument of "it's
only one photon, it cannot interfere with itself" all by itself doesn't
convince *me*. I need more.

  Explaining the reason why the interference pattern appears even though
the photon does not behave like a wave would help.

> The probability of it hitting the 
> screen at a given position is the amplitude of it going from the emitter to 
> the left slit to that point on the screen *plus* the probability of it going 
> from the emitter to the right slit to that point on the screen.

  I don't think you can talk about amplitudes after claiming so firmly that
photons are not waves.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message