[General] Can a single indivisible photon interfere?

[Wolfgang Baer]

I've been on your side of this issue for a long time since I further 
believe the near field effects and resonant absorbers unknown when Qm 
was first postulated show the small point absorption of an atome for a 
spread out wave is a likely explanation for the photon postulate. 
However Chip is makeing some interesting arguments for a self confining 
Em propagation, how self confined photons then explain the double slit 
interference without the quantum baggage is then always a problem.

Of course your argument that more than one photon is necessary for 
interference in a Mach Zender setup is perfectly correct but experiments 
are always done with a beam so photons interfere with each other - I do 
not know if single photon MZ experiments have ever been done

Your slide on Einstein - I wonder if quantum effects are in fact 
confined to the material of the instruments that are infact the Hilbert 
space?

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 9/25/2017 2:56 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> Hello Everybody: Here is a potentially new “thread” for debate for our 
> community.
>
> “Can a single indivisible photon interfere?”
>
> My answer is a strong “No”.
>
> I just presented this paper at the OSA Annual meeting last week, held  
> at Washington, DC. It was well accepted by many.
>
> It is only an 11-slide presentation. However, it experimentally 
> demonstrates that, for Superposition Effect to emerge, we must have 
> the simultaneous presence of two physical signals carrying two 
> physically different phase information incident on the opposite sides 
> of the beam-combiner of a two-beam Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The 
> superposition effect emerges as purely a classical effect facilitated 
> by the dielectric boundary of the beam combiner (classical 
> light-matter interaction; no QM). The energies in the two superposed 
> beams can have any value, no lower limit like “h-nu”. Thus, single 
> photon interference is causally and physically an untenable logic, in 
> my view point.
>
> The experiment also underscores that the postulate of the 
> “Wave-particle duality”, is completely unnecessary for EM waves. In 
> fact, the Copenhagen Interpretation becomes more logical and causal 
> without this postulate. The QM formulation is essentially correct. We 
> do not need to degrade it by imposing non-causal postulates.
>
> In the past, I have also proposed an experiment to validate that for 
> “particle interference”, we also need pairs of out-of-phase particles 
> to nullify the stimulation of the detector molecule to generate “dark 
> fringes”.
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170925/2c54aac2/attachment.htm>