[General] Can a single indivisible photon interfere?

Tue Sep 26 13:39:49 PDT 2017

Chandra,

Does not the Lorentz contraction make the photon appear to be a zero-length
object?

Andrew

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> Chip: Good luck in your approach to model electron.
>
> While my cerebral eyes are quite blind to the detailed “looks’ of
> electrons; I think I am seeing the photons a bit better, at least for now.
>
> Photons are transient entities satisfying both the nineteenth century
> Quantum Mechanics (quantum transitions) and the seventeenth century wave
> mechanics proposed by Huygens (in contrast to Newton).
>
>
>
> Yes, the wave-particle duality is that old (started during around the
> third quarter of 1600). However, Newton and Huygens understood that their
> “quarrel” on the “wave-particle duality” was due to both of their ignorance
> about the deeper nature of light. Unfortunately, the fathers of our QM
> formalism declared “wave-particle duality” as the *new knowledge *to hide
> our deeper ignorance. Bohr was “Hell Bent” to [prove that QM formalism was
> “Complete” and successfully defeated Einstein in the famous Bohr-Einstein
> debate!  However, Einstein was an eternal enquirer like a true scientists,
> critiquing effectively all of his successful theories. Nature is not
> mischievous. She does not play “duality” or “non-causality” games with us.
> Those are just our over-confidence on the human invented mathematical
> logics; which are not god’s logics.
>
>
>
> However, maths are the best “slide calipers” for us to keep modeling
> nature iteratively with many different starting postulates. We must keep
> our enquiring minds alert constantly.
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.
> edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2017 12:16 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.
> natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Can a single indivisible photon interfere?
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
>
> 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" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/af106d3b/attachment.htm>