Are you capable of changing your mind, of really questioning what
you've been taught?
If you think you understand the Double-Slit experiment, or even if you don't..........read
on.
In his review of Anil Ananthaswamy's splendid book Through Two
Doors at Once, Philip Ball said "According to the eminent
physicist Richard Feynman, the quantum double-slit experiment puts us
up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature".
Feynman said of the twin slit experiment that it has in it the
heart of quantum mechanics and that in reality, it contains the only
mystery.
Philip Ball continued in his review to say “By Feynman's logic, if
we could understand what is going on in this deceptively simple
experiment, we would penetrate to the heart of quantum theory -
and perhaps all its puzzles would dissolve."
In Through Two Doors at Once, Ananthaswamy concludes that
"physics has yet to complete its passage through the double-slit
experiment. The case remains unsolved."
Another quote of Feynman is “I would rather have questions that
can’t be answered than answers that can’t be
questioned.”
Can we dispel the mystery of quantum mechanics by questioning some
of his answers?
The belief that light propagates as
a wave is taken by Feynman as proven in the double-slit experiment
where it is considered that photons of light waves interfere with
each other to produce the patterns seen.
However.........
“Photons, the fundamental particles of light, do not interact
with each other in everyday life.”
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/complex/Firstenberg/quantum-nonlinear-optics-strongly-interacting-photons
And..........
“Normally, beams of light pass through each other unperturbed.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
And.........
“...instead of bouncing off of each other, these
beams of light travel in straight lines, ignoring each other
entirely.”
https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/PhotonGate/PhotonGate.html
Physics is fully aware that photons
of light or any other energy level [or ‘frequency’] DO NOT
interfere with each other, therefore it should be known that such an
interaction cannot be responsible for the patterns observed in the
double-slit experiment.
Is it that physicists just haven't
noticed this flaw in a critical fundamental upon which so much else
is based, or is a blind eye turned to it as there seems to be no
viable explanation utilizing the alternative of light propagating
somehow as a particulate thing?
If we set aside the discussion of
'interference patterns' formed by photons for now and consider the
identical results obtained when electrons are used in the twin slit
experiment we are able to discern a clear causal process.
[That is provided we are able to see past the confirmation bias displayed in the convenient view that electrons also propagate as a wave rather than as a particle!]
As we know, matter is comprised of
atoms in association with each other. This is of course true for the
material in which the two slits are formed for the twin slit
experiment.
Under normal environmental
conditions the atoms of any material thing, including those of the
twin slit material, are in constant thermal motion.
In general terms, atoms present a
negative charge to their surroundings owing to their electron field.
This charge appears as either a
simple or complex spherical field and this field is on a very large
scale in comparison with an electron passing in its vicinity.
A negatively charged electron
approaching the electron field of an atom will be repelled by the
[mobile] negative charge exhibited by that atom.
The direction taken by an electron
repelled by the negative field of any atom it encounters is primarily
determined by the angle at which the curvature of the atomic field is
encountered and the instantaneous motion of the atom at that time.
Consideration of the twin slit
material and its behavior at the atomic scale provides a clear
picture showing that simultaneous or successive electrons passing
through the twin slits will be deflected and scattered across a broad
range by the atoms they encounter.
Picture small balls bouncing off
very large balls that are constantly moving and jostling each other.
These deflections cause the
electrons to encounter the twin slit screen in many places, producing
patterns determined largely by the characteristics of the slit
material [and the energy (frequency) of the light].
It should be clear that the pattern
formed by electrons emitted one at a time to pass through the slits
will accumulate the same type of image on a storage screen as that
produced immediately by a flood of electrons.
It can be seen that a very similar
but not identical pattern emerges with the use of one slit only. The
basic mechanism for why this is so should now be apparent to you.
As the twin slit experiment
produces identical results for electrons and photons it appears
reasonable to conclude that the same or a similar mechanism may be
involved in both instances.
"If we want a scientific theory, we also have to require that it describes what we observe. It's science, not maths. This means that the requirement that the assumptions describe what we observe is *necessary to select the theory. And so, one of the reasons for why a scientific theory is correct will always be "Because it describes what we observe"." Sabine Hossenfelder
ANALYSIS METHOD FOR NATURE OF LIGHT
In the world of electronic engineering the process for investigating
the cause of the failure of a complex piece of equipment or system is
similar to that employed in reverse engineering.
Reverse engineering is a process by which deductive reasoning is
utilized in an attempt to understand the mechanisms by which a
device, process, system or software meets its observed performance.
The same process is used to determine what caused a faulty piece of
equipment to exhibit its observed failure symptoms.
Logically applied deduction follows a path of successive analysis of
immediately prior causes to arrive at conclusions regarding the
origins of present observations.
Based upon prior training and experience in addition to logical
reasoning, an investigator will consider a range of ‘what if?’
questions while conducting their analysis.
The ability to imagine and analyze what may at first consideration
appear to be unlikely or even ridiculous ‘what if?’ questions
separates the most successful systems analysts from the majority and
can produce valuable results where a more conventional approach may
fail to do so.
The Nature of Light.
I came away from a series of lectures by professor Richard Feynman
with a feeling of uneasy dissatisfaction and a reluctance to accept
the inherent limitation on human knowledge that was implied and
seemingly considered reasonable by physicists.
Although fully aware of my own intellectual limitations in comparison
with those at the forefront of science I was also aware that many
physicists themselves admit [quietly in most instances] that there
must be a shortcoming somewhere in the fundamental theory.
Presently accepted concepts fail to account for all known aspects of
reality.
Despite my lack of formal education in advanced physics I had the
perhaps delusional thought that my considerable and successful
experience in the analysis of many diverse complex systems in
military and civilian electronic engineering....
as well as in other fields of investigation may have provided me with
an advantage not afforded to many qualified scientists when it comes
to ascertaining the characteristics light would need to possess to
cause it to behave as observed and to do so in all regards.
Applying the concepts of reverse engineering to the well documented
behavior of light I asked myself a range of ‘what if?’ questions
in an attempt to discover its true nature.
Considering it almost certainly an exercise in futility but
determined to either confirm the generally accepted characteristics of light, find answers to satisfy myself or to ultimately
conclude that the subject matter is beyond the scope of my
capabilities...
I was surprised to conceive a ‘particulate’ photon model that
appeared to meet the necessary criteria.
While my model for the nature and
behavior of light [photons] may in fact be a pure fantasy, it seemed
to work at a fundamental level. But did it explain any physical
phenomena?
If you wish to understand how the
equivalence of photons and electrons in this experiment could be true
I suggest you closely analyze the presentation at
https://www.hereticalphysics.com by going to
The
Wayback Machine at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220818170117/http://hereticalphysics.com/#Bookmark_2
as the direct hereticalphysics site
is no longer in use.
A capable and unspoiled mind should
appreciate and gain from the experience, and any comments to
hereticalphysics@gmail.com
should confine themselves to analyzing and questioning the ideas
explored rather than contrasting them with current beliefs.
Sabine Hossenfelder said in her
excellent book Lost in Math “With hindsight one often wonders why a
particular conclusion was not drawn earlier, even though the pieces
were all there already.”
What do YOU think? Can we dispel some mysteries?
Eric Weinstein
A modification to the foundations of physics is indeed possible without having the whole thing collapse around us.
“When
we shoot two waves of light through a double slit, they form a
pattern based on the way their peaks and troughs match up or clash.
When we shoot a single photon through, we'd expect it to just go
through unchanged. But it won't. When you shoot enough single photons
through—one at a time, alternating slits—they form the same
interference pattern as the waves of light. Basically,
that means
that all the possible
paths of these particles can interfere with each other, even though
only one of the possible paths actually happens.” From
POPULAR MECHANICS - The
Double-Slit Experiment That Blew Open Quantum Mechanics
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a22094/video-explainer-double-slit-experiment/
This is a mysterious explanation that is seen to be unnecessary and
indeed a nonsense in light of the Ignis hypothesis.
Einstein favored explanations capable of visualization. I think he
would have agreed with my approach, if perhaps not with my
conclusions.
Appropriate computer graphics in key areas would avoid the need for
visualization of course and would make the ideas quite clear but
creating such things is not within my skill-set.
Einstein is reported to have said that unless you can explain an idea to your
grandmother you do not really understand it yourself. I believe that
any intelligent and scientifically minded person in their mid-teens
would be capable of following the argument I present if they have the
patience for it.
I have a direct challenge to the claim by Professor Richard Feynman
and many others that the observed outcome of the twin slit experiment
is evidence for the wave theory of light.
My challenge is in accordance with the requirements of the Hard Core
Science Group's owner as it is rooted in a comprehensible scientific
argument. In addition to pointing out errors in the wave explanation I provide
argument in support of the particle theory alternative for the
propagation of light that takes into account the nature of matter at
the atomic scale.
Those interested in advancing our understanding of scientific
concepts are asked to apply logical analysis to what I have to say
and to explain any errors they may find in my work.
I fully understand the enormity of my claim and while realizing your
first instinct [as well as perhaps your second] will be to ridicule
what I have to say let me assure you that it actually has the
potential to rekindle your excitement about physics.
One-at-a-time electrons [or photons].
A little thought about the foregoing allows us to easily explain why
'interference patterns' produced by electrons [or photons] passing
one at a time through the slits are not mysterious in any way.
Each individual electron or photon interacts with the mobile, curved
negative charges of the atoms it encounters in the walls of the slits
through which it passes.
This interaction causes the deflection of the paths of these
individual entities as previously discussed.
Deflection of successive particles is thus able to gradually produce
the results found on a screen able to store the accumulated pattern.
No superposition of electrons or photons is necessary for this result
to occur.
It is not necessary for particles to travel back in time to interfere
with themselves for the observed outcome to come about.
Food for thought?
Please see the following link to explore this idea further.
https://photon-interactions.blogspot.com/2019/08/what-is-light-insearch-of-knowledge.html
