[General] Can a single indivisible photon interfere?

[Chip Akins]

Hi Wolf and Chandra

 

While my conjecture for the formation of elementary fermions and “photons” works quite well to explain the properties of electrons and the forces of nature, it still does not mean that a “photon” does not evolve into a propagating wavepacket after emission.

 

My current belief is that the photon exists as a particle which exhibits wave-like properties due to its configuration and topology, and does not evolve into a different topology once emitted.

 

But I agree with Chandra regarding the fact that a photon cannot be emitted unless there is a dipole field involved. The emission of radiation in accelerators is caused by the interaction of the accelerating field with the electron.  A lone charged particle cannot emit a photon, there must be a dipole to create a photon, and there must be a dipole to absorb energy from a photon.  So this limits the conditions under which emission and absorption can occur.

 

The reaction of an electron in a double slit experiment is not strictly due to the electron interfering with itself, but rather due to the interaction of the electron’s fields with the fields of the particles in the double slit mask.  So the topology of the mask, and its dimensions, have a pronounced effect on the detected pattern.

 

If this is the case with electron double slit experiments, it is likely also the case with photon double slit experiments.

 

I finally have a pretty good understanding of how to model this, so I will start working on a double slit simulation in MATLAB.  It will be interesting to see how well the predicted behavior from my model agrees with the observed behavior for electron and photon double slit experiments.

 

Once this is done correctly, if the predicted does not agree with the observed for the photons, then we have to consider the possibility that the photon is not what I think it is.

 

I have already done some checking on the electron model and double slit behavior, and that works out quite well so far.

 

Will keep you posted.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 12:51 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] Can a single indivisible photon interfere?

 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> 
<a href= <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> "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/20170926/77841230/attachment.htm>