On 8/30/21 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> there is no way to prove that a photon CANNOT interfere with itself.

Yes, but not in the sense you mean -- it's easy to prove that a photon
DOES interfere with itself, in the precise meaning of those words in
QED. See below.

[Remember that "photon" is part of the model (QED),
not the world, and as QED is a mathematical model,
such proof is possible.]

> But there is simply no REASON to believe a photon somehow interferes
> with itself.

"Believe" -- no, because this is physics, not theology.

Understand -- YES! Anybody who understands QED will understand this
basic aspect of the theory; clearly that does not include Ed Lake.

[Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is
necessarily in the context of QED, because QED is what
defines the concept "photon". So any discussion of
photons involves the model, not the world.]

In QED, to get the amplitude for detecting a photon at a given point,
one sums up the amplitudes for all possible sources and all possible
paths from each source to the point in question. For the double-slit
experiment, there is only one source, and only two paths [#]. That
summation of amplitudes for those two paths is what is meant by
"interfering with itself". The MATH is clear, and the PHYSICS is clear;
the English may be less clear, especially to people who don't know QED.

[The probability of detecting a photon at that point is
the magnitude squared of the (complex) amplitude
discussed above.]

[#] Neglecting the widths of the slits, and paths with
negligible amplitudes.

Whoever said this has been lost, but it is WRONG:
>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit.

No, in the double-slit experiment, speaking loosely, a photon goes
through both slits; the actual situation is more complicated (see above).

Elsewhere Ed Lake asked:
> How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go
> through a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the
> bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area outside of the
> slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass through?

Certainly in principle one must consider paths that hit the bar between
the slits, hit the area outside the slits, and graze the edges of the
slits (plus very many more). In a real experiment one must include these
effects (most of which can easily be shown to be negligible). In a
GEDANKEN like this, which is part of an ELEMENTARY discussion, such
details can be neglected, because a) they are not important [@], and b)
they obscure the point of the discussion.

[@] None of the paths mentioned have non-negligible
amplitude to reach the detector, so they don't
significantly contribute to the sum.

Note, please, that I am discussing PATHS, not photons here. In QED one
computes the amplitude for a photon to hit the detector, and multiplies
the corresponding probability by the intensity of the source(s). Here
one does not really talk about multiple photons as Ed Lake seems to
think (some elementary textbooks do so, as a manner of speaking, not a
precise description of the theory).

[More complex physical situations can involve multiple
photons, each photon being an individual factor in the
amplitude for a given path or process.]

> [... further irrelevancies and nonsense ignored]

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 2:06:38 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:

I know that you don´t reply my posts, as well as I stopped doing it with yours,
but I can't let go the following assertions:

<snip>
> [Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is necessarily in the context of QED, because QED is what
> defines the concept "photon". So any discussion of photons involves the model, not the world.]
<2nd snip>
> the English may be less clear, especially to people who don't know QED.
<3rd snip>
> > [... further irrelevancies and nonsense ignored]
>
> Tom Roberts

1) I don't like how you, Bodkin, etc., patronize Ed. I don't know anything about him, and it's OK. But I don't see a
reason, beyond the pleasure of beat the crap out of other's beliefs, that could justify such posts.
If you or any other don't like the topic or the content of the post, just pass.

2) Your assertion: "Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is necessarily in the context of QED, because
QED is what defines the concept "photon"." is fallacious and has an evident circular reasoning.

As far as I know, QED evolved from basic relativistic QM/QFT developed by Dirac (who was dumped to the trash 10/15
years after that, and lived feeling forgotten until his death, 35 years after). Dirac, a tortured wide spectrum autistic,
invented notations, concepts, rules and complex mathematics (too complex for the taste of almost everybody).

After Dirac and WWII, came Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichiro as founders of QED, allegedly independent one of each other.

But Dirac, a 2nd. order actor in QM, was concerned to top Heisenberg and Schrodinger (along everyone in continental
Europe). All three of them were childs of Bohr, who in turn, was the intellectual son of Planck (and Maxwell).

Photon was created IN his 1901 paper, which was based on Maxwell and Rayleigh (he "borrowed" his ideas about BBC).

And Planck explicitly said, afterwards: "energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete quantities at the resonators, but flows
in the space as EM waves". And such discrete quantities multiples of ϵ = hʋ contain the root of the artificial concept of
photons, which is very useful to synthesize the action of tedious equations for EM waves acting on atoms, but creating
the conflict about the wave-particle behavior of light (still unsolved).

Analyzing in depth Planck's concepts about classic EM physics and quantum physics, the concept of the photon is right there:

h = 6.55 · 10−27 erg · sec, is the energy that a single EM wave carry and can deliver in a given TIME.

Planck found that ϵ = hʋ = h/τ IS VALID as long as c = λ.ʋ = λ/τ is VERIFIED.

So, light travels as a massless point in the space, which is self-propelled, self-oscillating point that travels at c speed AND
that, while moving in a longitudinal path, has two oscillating transversal components in quadrature (E and H fields).

But it is a point-like massless particle, after all.

To give its energy to atoms, Planck discovered that it involves ONE ENTIRE period of oscillation τ, no more and no less.

So, understanding that the energy of the quantum of action h is delivered in exactly τ seconds OR that it takes τ seconds
for an atom to expel an amount ϵ = hʋ = h/τ of energy, verifies everything done in science for the last 120 years.

The photon, which is a convenient and compact form to redefine Maxwell influence on atoms, molecules and matter in general,
is an abstraction which DEGENERATED under QFT/QED and beyond (with virtual photons, which depart from ϵ = hʋ = h/τ.

The use of ʋ instead of τ in such fundamental equation, plus 120 years of picturing an EM wave as a continuum instead of
a point-like massless particle, has caused the damage in the brain of 99.99% of laymen and scientists who, married with the
current dogma, can't think out of the box.

So beware, Roberts, of your assertive affirmations about photons and which theory defines them. You too need to think out
of the box and go back to square one. You can keep your relativity if you want, but open your mind (if you are able to do so)
and stop going around claiming that, BECAUSE you follow QED, every bit of truth is there. Read more history of science, and
take a brake to think about the timeline of events in quantum physics, and how far are you from the origin.

This, unless you want to question Planck. But you'll have to question CBR and COBE, WMAP and PLANCK space missions too,
included the entire body of current cosmology. Planck's theory is all over there. Isn't it?

P.D.: And Planck's photons have wavelength too. Or are you going to question c = λ.ʋ ?

On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 17:34:41 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> because of your belief that it is false. Confirmation or refutation by
> experiment depends only on the experiment and nature itself, not on your
> beliefs.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie,
stupid Mike.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 2:06:38 AM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> I know that you don´t reply my posts, as well as I stopped doing it with yours,
> but I can't let go the following assertions:
>
> <snip>
>> [Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is necessarily in the
>> context of QED, because QED is what
>> defines the concept "photon". So any discussion of photons involves the
>> model, not the world.]
> <2nd snip>
>> the English may be less clear, especially to people who don't know QED.
> <3rd snip>
>>> [... further irrelevancies and nonsense ignored]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> 1) I don't like how you, Bodkin, etc., patronize Ed. I don't know
> anything about him, and it's OK. But I don't see a
> reason, beyond the pleasure of beat the crap out of other's beliefs, that
> could justify such posts.
> If you or any other don't like the topic or the content of the post, just pass.

It’s not a matter of not liking the topic. It’s the pretense of the poster
to make a strong claim about something he knows practically nothing about.
This is connected to the ambition of someone wanting to dive right into a
more advanced topic like relativity or quantum mechanics or cosmology while
skipping the prerequisite basics (because the basics are just no fun). When
someone attempts to take a shortcut and falls into a ditch as a result, the
mocking of spectators is deserved.

You are a big fan, apparently, of everyone’s opinions — both informed and
uninformed — being received and discussed on a level playing field as all
having equal value. I’m not much of a fan of that.

>
> 2) Your assertion: "Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is
> necessarily in the context of QED, because
> QED is what defines the concept "photon"." is fallacious and has an
> evident circular reasoning.
>
> As far as I know, QED evolved from basic relativistic QM/QFT developed by Dirac

Yes, no doubt about that.

> (who was dumped to the trash 10/15
> years after that, and lived feeling forgotten until his death, 35 years
> after). Dirac, a tortured wide spectrum autistic,
> invented notations, concepts, rules and complex mathematics (too complex
> for the taste of almost everybody).
>
> After Dirac and WWII, came Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichiro as founders
> of QED, allegedly independent one of each other.
>
> But Dirac, a 2nd. order actor in QM, was concerned to top Heisenberg and
> Schrodinger (along everyone in continental
> Europe). All three of them were childs of Bohr, who in turn, was the
> intellectual son of Planck (and Maxwell).
>
> Photon was created IN his 1901 paper, which was based on Maxwell and
> Rayleigh (he "borrowed" his ideas about BBC).

This borrowing of ideas is the ENTIRE PATTERN of the history of science
from the beginning. Did you think it should be otherwise? Did you think it
was ever claimed to be otherwise?

>
> And Planck explicitly said, afterwards: "energy is emitted or absorbed in
> discrete quantities at the resonators, but flows
> in the space as EM waves".

Right, that’s what Planck said. See my comment immediately below.

> And such discrete quantities multiples of ϵ = hʋ contain the root of the
> artificial concept of
> photons, which is very useful to synthesize the action of tedious
> equations for EM waves acting on atoms, but creating
> the conflict about the wave-particle behavior of light (still unsolved).
>
> Analyzing in depth Planck's concepts about classic EM physics and quantum
> physics, the concept of the photon is right there:
>
> h = 6.55 · 10−27 erg · sec, is the energy that a single EM wave carry and
> can deliver in a given TIME.

Actually, Planck did not make the step of saying that light waves carried
energy in chunks like this. He only discovered that radiators emitted and
absorbed in these quanta. It was Einstein in fact who made the additional
step of saying that light was conveyed in these little chunks.

>
> Planck found that ϵ = hʋ = h/τ IS VALID as long as c = λ.ʋ = λ/τ is VERIFIED.
>
> So, light travels as a massless point in the space, which is
> self-propelled, self-oscillating point that travels at c speed AND
> that, while moving in a longitudinal path, has two oscillating
> transversal components in quadrature (E and H fields).

Planck said or asserted none of that, and not all of it is correct, either.

>
> But it is a point-like massless particle, after all.
>
> To give its energy to atoms, Planck discovered that it involves ONE
> ENTIRE period of oscillation τ, no more and no less.

No, sir, he made no such claim and it isn’t correct.

>
> So, understanding that the energy of the quantum of action h is delivered
> in exactly τ seconds OR that it takes τ seconds
> for an atom to expel an amount ϵ = hʋ = h/τ of energy, verifies
> everything done in science for the last 120 years.
>
> The photon, which is a convenient and compact form to redefine Maxwell
> influence on atoms, molecules and matter in general,
> is an abstraction which DEGENERATED under QFT/QED and beyond (with
> virtual photons, which depart from ϵ = hʋ = h/τ.
>
> The use of ʋ instead of τ in such fundamental equation, plus 120 years of
> picturing an EM wave as a continuum instead of
> a point-like massless particle, has caused the damage in the brain of
> 99.99% of laymen and scientists who, married with the
> current dogma, can't think out of the box.
>
> So beware, Roberts, of your assertive affirmations about photons and
> which theory defines them. You too need to think out
> of the box and go back to square one. You can keep your relativity if you
> want, but open your mind (if you are able to do so)
> and stop going around claiming that, BECAUSE you follow QED, every bit of
> truth is there. Read more history of science, and
> take a brake to think about the timeline of events in quantum physics,
> and how far are you from the origin.
>
> This, unless you want to question Planck. But you'll have to question CBR
> and COBE, WMAP and PLANCK space missions too,
> included the entire body of current cosmology. Planck's theory is all over there. Isn't it?
>
> P.D.: And Planck's photons have wavelength too. Or are you going to question c = λ.ʋ ?
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 at 15:02:00 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> You are a big fan, apparently, of everyone’s opinions — both informed and
> uninformed — being received and discussed on a level playing field as all
> having equal value. I’m not much of a fan of that.

Sure, like any other fanatic idiot you're a fan of a concept
that your/informed opinion is the only what matters.

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 11:34:16 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 7:59:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks
> > that are separated"?
>
> This was explained previously, but you ignored the explanation.

I learn by asking questions. You evidently "learn" by memorizing dogma.
I ask a question. You recite dogma. Your dogma doesn't answer my question..

> > Time dilation experiments do NOT show any reciprocal time dilation.
> We've covered this before: The net effects of gravitational potential differences and non-inertial motions are generally not reciprocal. Those are not counter-examples to reciprocity of time dilation in special relativity, which refers to the relativity of inertial simultaneity as explained above.
> > You use experiments that are NOT time dilation experiments and twist things to
> > claim the ARE time dilation experiments.
> As explained above, the key to reciprocal time dilation is understanding the relativity of inertial simultaneity, which depends on whether or not every quantity E of energy has inertia E/c^2. The experiments show that it does, which signifies that inertial simultaneity is skewed, resulting in reciprocal time dilation as explained above.

There is no such thing as reciprocal time dilation. There CAN'T BE,
because what CAUSES time to slow down for one atom has no bearing
on what happens to any other atom. Reciting dogma doesn't change that.

> > A photon cannot interfere with itself.
> Be careful... your concept of a photon, which is an oscillating particle following a definite path, can't interfere with itself, which is why your concept of a photon can't give the observed "striped pattern" in a two-slit experiment, but the photon in quantum electrodynamics does interfere with itself, which is how it results in the "striped pattern".

No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT. Each
travels it OWN path away from the emitter. When a laser is used as an
emitter, the light doesn't spread out very much, but the photons will still
form a round spot when they hit. They won't all hit a dot that is one photon
wide.

> > Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> > routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> > the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> > go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> > that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> > slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> > the "striped pattern."
> No, your beliefs don't work, for the following reason: When both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped pattern", and there are dark spots on the screen where no photons ever land.

Right. And when you close one of the slits, the light has only one route
to take, and therefore it produces a solid pattern instead of stripes.

>
> Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.

No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen.

> > A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side.
> You're confusing the classical electromagnetic field description with the photon description. A photon does not oscillate, for the reason explained several times.

I learn by asking questions. You evidently learn by memorizing dogma.

If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
and blue light? The answer I get is that Red light photons oscillate
about 460,000,000,000 times per second and blue light photons
oscillate about 630,000,000,000 times per second.

> > If the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
> > photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
> > instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
> > re-emitted in some other direction.
> None of that explains the fact that when you "photon" goes through the Left slit, the possible landing places depends on whether the Right slit is open. I ask again: How do you explain this?

The explanation is: YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG. When photons can
go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.

> > Experiments that are done TODAY show that if you send one photon at a time
> > through the double slit device those photons will eventually form that same striped
> > pattern on the wall.
> Right, but your beliefs cannot account for the fact that the striped pattern goes away when one of the slits is closed. We get the stripes only when both slits are open. According to your beliefs, each "photon" goes through just one slit, and its path shouldn't depend on whether the other slit is open. But it does. You cannot explain this fact, so your beliefs are wrong. Right?

Do you want me to repeat my answer again? How many time do I have
to repeat it before you will understand it. Or will you NEVER understand it
because it conflicts with the DOGMA you have memorized?

Ed

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:07:17 PM UTC-5, bubba wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> >> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
> >> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is
> >> possible does not make it impossible.
> >
> > You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that a photon
> > CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON to believe
> > a photon somehow interferes with itself. The photon is going through a
> > barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely interact with
> > ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being TRANSFERRED from one
> > atom to another.
> you use terminology you know nothing about what it is. _interfere_ in
> this configuration stands for *exchange_of_energy*, thus rise or fall of
> energy level. Why should photons exchange energy, when such that will
> annihilate itself out of existence. Just think.

Photons do not exchange energy from one photon to another. Photons
ARE energy that is being transferred from one ATOM to another.

Ed

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:22:05 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> >>> A photon cannot interfere with itself.
> >> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
> >> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is possible
> >> does not make it impossible.
> >
> > You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that
> > a photon CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON
> > to believe a photon somehow interferes with itself.
> Actually, there is good reason, see the book already mentioned below, which
> you’ve tried to read.
> > The photon is going
> > through a barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely
> > interact with ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being
> > TRANSFERRED from one atom to another.
> Well, really the issue is not about the photons that get stopped by the
> barrier. It’s only about the photons that pass through the slits. What’s in
> fact interesting is that the interference pattern does not change if you
> change the width of each slit, and this is how you know that grazing is not
> the driver for the behavior. What’s also interesting is that you can tune
> down the intensity of the source so that you know there is ONLY one photon
> being sent toward the slits at a time — say, one photon every 3 seconds, so
> that the likelihood of them being sent in pairs is essentially nil. The
> interference pattern remains. This is one of the good reasons to start
> considering that the photons must be interfering with themselves — it
> doesn’t count on grazing, and it still happens when it’s one photon at a
> time.

Why must a photon interfere with itself when there are countless ATOMS
in the experimental device which have electromagnetic fields and
therefore the ability to INTERFERE with the trajectory of a photon?

> >
> >>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> >>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> >>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> >>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> >>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> >>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> >>> the "striped pattern."
> >> I suggest you read Feynman’s book for laypeople: The Character of Physical
> >> Law. He describes this in very simple terms, though it takes several
> >> chapters to make the point.
> >
> > I've read "The Character of Physical Law." I have a hardback copy and I have
> > it in digital form. Feynman just describes the double slit experiment as a
> > "mystery."
> No, he doesn’t just say that. He spends several chapters talking about the
> experiment in detail.

Yes, as a mystery. He also repeats countless times that a photon does not
get broken or divided. It ALWAYS remains as ONE PIECE. HOWEVER, he also
says that NOT ALL photons get through. The total emitted photons is greater
than the total received photons at the screen.

> > He also says the two holes are in a plate made of TUNGSTEN.
> > That poses the question: What happens to a photon when it hits tungsten?
> It stops. But the interference pattern is all about those photons that do
> not touch or graze any tungsten at all.

That is ILLOGICAL, since the only "interference" would come from the
electromagnetic fields surrounding the TUNGSTEN ATOMS that the
two slits are constructed from.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 11:34:16 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 7:59:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks
>>> that are separated"?
>>
>> This was explained previously, but you ignored the explanation.
>
> I learn by asking questions. You evidently "learn" by memorizing dogma.
> I ask a question. You recite dogma. Your dogma doesn't answer my question.

Townes is not going to answer you in a way that meets you where you are. He
is not going to use ordinary colloquial language. He is going to use
concepts you have not learned. He is not trying to explain anything in a
way that you can understand.

I know that’s frustrating to you. You just have to be aware of what the
motives of various people are. When Townes replies to you, he’s not trying
to explain anything to you. He’s already told me plainly (here) that he has
no hope of explaining anything to you, so he’s not trying.

Now, what is also true is that his explanations to you are in fact
technically correct. He does understand what he’s saying. So it’s not
accurate to say that it’s just stuff that he’s memorized. It’s just not
true and it’s unfair of you to say that. Whether or not you understand what
he’s saying is something else entirely, because he’s not trying to say it
in a way you will understand. He’s deliberately talking over your head
because of his motivations when he responds.

>
>>> Time dilation experiments do NOT show any reciprocal time dilation.
>> We've covered this before: The net effects of gravitational potential
>> differences and non-inertial motions are generally not reciprocal. Those
>> are not counter-examples to reciprocity of time dilation in special
>> relativity, which refers to the relativity of inertial simultaneity as explained above.
>>> You use experiments that are NOT time dilation experiments and twist things to
>>> claim the ARE time dilation experiments.
>> As explained above, the key to reciprocal time dilation is understanding
>> the relativity of inertial simultaneity, which depends on whether or not
>> every quantity E of energy has inertia E/c^2. The experiments show that
>> it does, which signifies that inertial simultaneity is skewed, resulting
>> in reciprocal time dilation as explained above.
>
> There is no such thing as reciprocal time dilation. There CAN'T BE,
> because what CAUSES time to slow down for one atom has no bearing
> on what happens to any other atom.

Here you have an assumption going on that is false. You are ASSUMING that
time dilation has something to do with changing the way an atom functions,
actually slowing it down. In your ASSUMPTION, time dilation is a physical
change that affects atoms and matter. Within your ASSUMPTION, then, time
dilation cannot be reciprocal.

The question, though, is whether your ASSUMPTION about the nature of time
dilation is correct at all. Here is where experiment actually helps. This
is how science works: If you have a mental hypothesis about how nature
works, and in this model it is clear that a certain outcome is IMPOSSIBLE,
but an experiment actually shows that outcome happening, then the model and
the assumption you made in that model are now flat wrong.

What’s been cited are some experiments where reciprocal time dilation might
be expected to occur (GPS and Hafele-Keating are not examples of that, so
they don’t help answer the question) according to physicists. And sure
enough, reciprocal time dilation is observed in those specifically targeted
experiments. That is exactly the kind of thing that should THRILL you, if
you thought like a physicist, because it is a surprise. Physicists LOVE
surprises where something they think is impossible turns out to happen
anyway. So I ask you: are you comfortable with the prospect of being
surprised and finding out that your notion of how time dilation works is
just wrong?

> Reciting dogma doesn't change that.
>
>>> A photon cannot interfere with itself.
>> Be careful... your concept of a photon, which is an oscillating particle
>> following a definite path, can't interfere with itself, which is why
>> your concept of a photon can't give the observed "striped pattern" in a
>> two-slit experiment, but the photon in quantum electrodynamics does
>> interfere with itself, which is how it results in the "striped pattern".
>
> No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
> emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT. Each
> travels it OWN path away from the emitter. When a laser is used as an
> emitter, the light doesn't spread out very much, but the photons will still
> form a round spot when they hit. They won't all hit a dot that is one photon
> wide.
>
>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>> the "striped pattern."
>> No, your beliefs don't work, for the following reason: When both slits
>> are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach
>> the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out),
>> but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot,
>> we find the "striped pattern", and there are dark spots on the screen
>> where no photons ever land.
>
> Right. And when you close one of the slits, the light has only one route
> to take, and therefore it produces a solid pattern instead of stripes.
>
>>
>> Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern
>> disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the
>> spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means
>> that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by
>> whether the other slit is open.
>
> No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen.
>
>>> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side.
>> You're confusing the classical electromagnetic field description with
>> the photon description. A photon does not oscillate, for the reason
>> explained several times.
>
> I learn by asking questions. You evidently learn by memorizing dogma.
>
> If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
> and blue light? The answer I get is that Red light photons oscillate
> about 460,000,000,000 times per second and blue light photons
> oscillate about 630,000,000,000 times per second.

No, that’s not correct. The difference between a red light photon and a
blue light photon is that the blue-light photon has more energy than a
red-light photon by a factor of 1.37.

If you have a whole bunch of blue-light photons, then this will behave like
a light wave of frequency 460GHz. But this does NOT mean the photons are
oscillating at 460 GHz.

>
>>> If the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
>>> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
>>> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
>>> re-emitted in some other direction.
>> None of that explains the fact that when you "photon" goes through the
>> Left slit, the possible landing places depends on whether the Right slit
>> is open. I ask again: How do you explain this?
>
> The explanation is: YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG. When photons can
> go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
> only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.

Nope. That doesn’t account for it. Feynman describes what it would look
like if what you said were true. Then he also draws what it IN FACT looks
like, which is different.

>
>>> Experiments that are done TODAY show that if you send one photon at a time
>>> through the double slit device those photons will eventually form that same striped
>>> pattern on the wall.
>> Right, but your beliefs cannot account for the fact that the striped
>> pattern goes away when one of the slits is closed. We get the stripes
>> only when both slits are open. According to your beliefs, each "photon"
>> goes through just one slit, and its path shouldn't depend on whether the
>> other slit is open. But it does. You cannot explain this fact, so your
>> beliefs are wrong. Right?
>
> Do you want me to repeat my answer again? How many time do I have
> to repeat it before you will understand it. Or will you NEVER understand it
> because it conflicts with the DOGMA you have memorized?
>
> Ed
>

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:07:17 PM UTC-5, bubba wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
>>>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is
>>>> possible does not make it impossible.
>>>
>>> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that a photon
>>> CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON to believe
>>> a photon somehow interferes with itself. The photon is going through a
>>> barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely interact with
>>> ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being TRANSFERRED from one
>>> atom to another.
>> you use terminology you know nothing about what it is. _interfere_ in
>> this configuration stands for *exchange_of_energy*, thus rise or fall of
>> energy level. Why should photons exchange energy, when such that will
>> annihilate itself out of existence. Just think.
>
> Photons do not exchange energy from one photon to another. Photons
> ARE energy that is being transferred from one ATOM to another.
>
> Ed
>

Photons interfering with each other does not involve transfer of energy
from one photon to another.

Interference is a phenomenon you have to learn about in first-year physics.
It’s seen in other simple cases like two waves in ONE string, or in sound
in a concert hall. There is no energy passed between the two interfering
things in any of these cases.

This is a fine example where it’s much better to slow down and learn the
basics (here, interference in a first-year physics textbook) before
encountering the subject in something more advanced like quantum mechanics
and making all sorts of incorrect assumptions.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:44:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/30/2021 12:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> >>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> >>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> >>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> >>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> >>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> >>> the "striped pattern."
> >> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
> >> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
> >
> > Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
> > on the screen shows that frequency.
> So why do they match what is predicted for an interference pattern?

When you create a mathematical model to explain what you see, you
get a mathematical model that explains what you THINK you see. It
may not actually explain what is happening.

> Why is the pattern different if there is only one slit vs. two slits?
> If the slits are the same, why doesn't it matter which slit is blocked
> to get the one slit pattern?

When you have two slits, the photons get separated into two paths.
When you have only one slit, all photons must go along one path.

(snip)
> OK, so your claim would predict that slits which are identical except
> for being in different materials will behave differently, because the
> different atoms in the slit device affect the light differently? Be
> careful...

Different materials? You make no sense. The device is supposedly
made from tungsten.

(snip)
> > You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
> > fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device.
> So if I have identical sized slits in different metals I will see
> different results with photons of the same frequency?

It might be a worthwhile experiment to try.

> > All photons oscillate at a specific frequency. How can you not know that???
> > Radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the radio range. A typical radar gun
> > emits photons that oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per second.
> I can observe a certain star and find the Sodium D line pair but it
> appears in the red portion of the spectrum. I can measure both their
> frequencies and wavelengths and confirm this, both correspond to red
> light, not the sodium yellow-orange. I can observe another star and
> find the sodium D line pair but in the green region. Again, the
> frequency and wavelengths correspond to green light, not yellow-orange.
> So what are the frequencies of oscillation of the sodium light photons
> I saw from the stars? A "red" frequency, a "green" frequency, the usual
> sodium orange-yellow, or something else? An astronomer will us the
> first star is receding and the second star is approaching which Doppler
> shifts their light, affecting both frequency and wavelengths.

Interesting. But it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

> >
> > The emitter inside a cesium atomic clock emits photons that oscillate at
> > EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.
> And if the clock is receding at 0.5c, what will I measure for its frequency?

It will be lower, but there is no receding light in the double slit experiment.

(snip more of the same)
> >> Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
> >> pattern.
> >
> > I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but photons are not "blocked."
> That may be what YOU believe, but by "blocked" the photons aren't
> contributing to the pattern just like any light encountering an opaque
> object. They are absorbed as heat or reflected away.
> > They are either absorbed and converted to heat, or they are absorbed
> > and RE-EMITTED.
> Which is what I meant by blocked. They don't contribute to the pattern
> because they are absorbed or reflected away from where the pattern is.

There is no evidence of that. Some photons get absorbed and turned into
heat inside the device, but most photons get through the slits to form
the patterns.
> >
> > And what about photons that just graze the sides of the slits?
> SlitS as in plural? Does one photon go through both slits if it grazes
> the sides? Explain?
> > How can you believe those photons will not have their paths altered?
> The question isn't whether the paths are altered but why are they
> altered in specific ways under specific conditions.

Because photons and electrons orbiting atoms work in predictable ways.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:22:05 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A photon cannot interfere with itself.
>>>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
>>>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is possible
>>>> does not make it impossible.
>>>
>>> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that
>>> a photon CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON
>>> to believe a photon somehow interferes with itself.
>> Actually, there is good reason, see the book already mentioned below, which
>> you’ve tried to read.
>>> The photon is going
>>> through a barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely
>>> interact with ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being
>>> TRANSFERRED from one atom to another.
>> Well, really the issue is not about the photons that get stopped by the
>> barrier. It’s only about the photons that pass through the slits. What’s in
>> fact interesting is that the interference pattern does not change if you
>> change the width of each slit, and this is how you know that grazing is not
>> the driver for the behavior. What’s also interesting is that you can tune
>> down the intensity of the source so that you know there is ONLY one photon
>> being sent toward the slits at a time — say, one photon every 3 seconds, so
>> that the likelihood of them being sent in pairs is essentially nil. The
>> interference pattern remains. This is one of the good reasons to start
>> considering that the photons must be interfering with themselves — it
>> doesn’t count on grazing, and it still happens when it’s one photon at a
>> time.
>
> Why must a photon interfere with itself when there are countless ATOMS
> in the experimental device which have electromagnetic fields and
> therefore the ability to INTERFERE with the trajectory of a photon?

It’s a reasonable question, but it’s also easy to test in simple
experiments.

If it were due to grazing the material sides of the slits, then changing
the width of the individual slits (not the distance between them, just the
widths of the slits themselves) would affect the ratio of those photons
grazing to not grazing, and then you’d expect the interference pattern to
change. It doesn’t. So grazing cannot be a significant factor.

If it were due to the atoms in all the material around the slits, then
changing the material from tungsten to aluminum to glass painted black
(with slits scratched out with a needle) would lead you to expect the
interference pattern to change. It doesn’t. So the material surrounding the
slits cannot be a significant factor.

It’s this kind of hypothesis and TESTING that makes science tick. You have
all these ideas for possibilities that HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHECKED, but
you’re not going to find all these by browsing through the superficial web
articles you’ve been looking at.

>
>>>
>>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>>>> the "striped pattern."
>>>> I suggest you read Feynman’s book for laypeople: The Character of Physical
>>>> Law. He describes this in very simple terms, though it takes several
>>>> chapters to make the point.
>>>
>>> I've read "The Character of Physical Law." I have a hardback copy and I have
>>> it in digital form. Feynman just describes the double slit experiment as a
>>> "mystery."
>> No, he doesn’t just say that. He spends several chapters talking about the
>> experiment in detail.
>
> Yes, as a mystery.

And yet he explains it.

> He also repeats countless times that a photon does not
> get broken or divided. It ALWAYS remains as ONE PIECE.

Yes. Which means it is NOT two pieces of one photon that pass through the
two slits. What he DOES say is that the behavior seen is what you’d expect
if the SAME photon passed through BOTH slits at the same time. Now, there
is something in your head that says “That’s IMPOSSIBLE. One thing cannot be
in two places at the same time.” But that is an ASSUMPTION derived from
everyday experience. What Feynman carefully explains is that nature is
truly strange and surprising, and it is NOT TRUE that one object cannot be
in two places at the same time. So that assumption that one thing can never
be in two places at the same time is just wrong, and has to be abandoned as
a valid assumption.

Now, an ordinary person (and possibly an analyst) might say, “But WHY
should I abandon that perfectly reasonable assumption? It’s always worked
before. I never see one Buick appearing in two places at the same time. Not
once, ever. In fact, no human being has ever reported a Buick appearing in
two places at the same time.” That is a fallacious argument and gets down
to why math becomes important in science. There’s a big difference in scale
between photons and Buicks. And while one object being in two places at the
same time does happen for both photons and Buicks, it is common for photons
and exceedingly rare for Buicks. That difference in rate pops right out of
the math of quantum mechanics. And so while it happens so often with
photons that it dominates their behavior, you’d have to wait forty
quadrillion years with a trillion Buicks before you ever saw one of those
Buicks behaving as though it were in two places at one time.

So as to your assumption, do not make the mistake of saying, “Well, if it
were true, then it should be common and exhibited in everything in everyday
life.” No. That’s why nature is completely surprising at different scales,
because a lot of the unusual behavior that is common at small scales is
just incomparably rare at ordinary scales.

> HOWEVER, he also
> says that NOT ALL photons get through. The total emitted photons is greater
> than the total received photons at the screen.
>
>>> He also says the two holes are in a plate made of TUNGSTEN.
>>> That poses the question: What happens to a photon when it hits tungsten?
>> It stops. But the interference pattern is all about those photons that do
>> not touch or graze any tungsten at all.
>
> That is ILLOGICAL, since the only "interference" would come from the
> electromagnetic fields surrounding the TUNGSTEN ATOMS that the
> two slits are constructed from.

Nope. That’s not the only source of interference. And as I indicated above,
it’s simple to show with an experiment that it can’t be the tungsten,
simply by changing the tungsten out for another material, including paper,
by the way. There’s no change when you do that, so the tungsten CAN’T be
the only source of the interference. Do not ASSUME that it must be the
tungsten unless you’ve done the tests to prove it’s the tungsten.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:25:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:41:45 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> (snip repetitive crap)
> >>> Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
> >>> experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
> >>> that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.
> >> No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and
> >> the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same,
> >> regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get
> >> interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating
> >> or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.
> >
> > No, an oscillating particle will be affected by the slits in MANY
> > DIFFERENT ways. How can you possibly believe that every photon
> > is going to go through a slit without any problem? Why don't some
> > photons hit the bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area
> > outside of the slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass
> > through?
>
> The only ones that contribute to the interference pattern are the ones that
> pass through the slits without any kind of contact.

That makes no sense! What happened to the photons that contacted the
tungsten or interacted with the electromagnetic fields of the tungsten?
>
> This is demonstrated by changing the material of the plate in which the
> slits are cut, changing the width of the slits themselves, and changing the
> intensity of the light.
>
> See Feynman’s book on this subject.

Here's a quote from pages 138 and 139 of Feynman's book:

"This proposition that I am talking about is general. It is
not just for two holes, but is a general proposition which
can be stated this way. The probability of any event in an
ideal experiment - that is just an experiment in which everything
is specified as well as it can be - is the square of something,
which in this case I have called 'a', the probability
amplitude. When an event can occur in several alternative
ways, the probability amplitude, this 'a' number, is the
sum of the 'a's for each of the various alternatives. If an
experiment is performed which is capable of determining
which alternative is taken, the probability of the event is
changed; it is then the sum of the probabilities for each
alternative. That is, you lose the interference.
The question now is, how does it really work? What
machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody knows
any machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation
of this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description
of it. They can give you a wider explanation, in the sense
that they can do more examples to show how it is impossible
to tell which hole the electron goes through and not at
the same time destroy the interference pattern. They can give
a wider class of experiments than just the two slit interference
experiment. But that is just repeating the same thing
to drive it in. It is not any deeper; it is only wider. The
mathematics can be made more precise; you can mention
that they are complex numbers instead of real numbers,
and a couple of other minor points which have nothing to
do with the main idea. But the deep mystery is what I have
described, and no one can go any deeper today."

Feynman's "today" was around 1965. Today, an ANALYSIS
of the problem should produce new answers, but mathematics
will just produce the same answers as they did in 1965. Math
hasn't changed much in the past half century.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:44:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/30/2021 12:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>>>> the "striped pattern."
>>>> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
>>>> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
>>>
>>> Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
>>> on the screen shows that frequency.
>> So why do they match what is predicted for an interference pattern?
>
> When you create a mathematical model to explain what you see, you
> get a mathematical model that explains what you THINK you see. It
> may not actually explain what is happening.
>
>> Why is the pattern different if there is only one slit vs. two slits?
>> If the slits are the same, why doesn't it matter which slit is blocked
>> to get the one slit pattern?
>
> When you have two slits, the photons get separated into two paths.
> When you have only one slit, all photons must go along one path.
>
> (snip)
>> OK, so your claim would predict that slits which are identical except
>> for being in different materials will behave differently, because the
>> different atoms in the slit device affect the light differently? Be
>> careful...
>
> Different materials? You make no sense. The device is supposedly
> made from tungsten.

It doesn’t have to be. The one described by Feynman might have been made of
tungsten. But I’ve made them myself with a variety of materials. I used a
nonmetal grating in a first-year physics teaching lab. Then I bought one
made of aluminum. I made one myself with a sheet of glass painted black,
with the two slits made with two safety razor blades taped together. I made
one out of thick-stock paper and an Exacto knife, a ruler, and a big
magnifying glass to see what I was doing. The result is the same in all
cases.

I think what you’re not appreciating, Ed, is that these phenomena have been
studied dozens of different ways, sometimes HUNDREDS of different ways, not
just the one way you might have learned about by reading a popularization
or a web page.

>
> (snip)
>>> You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
>>> fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device.
>> So if I have identical sized slits in different metals I will see
>> different results with photons of the same frequency?
>
> It might be a worthwhile experiment to try.

It’s been done.

>
>>> All photons oscillate at a specific frequency. How can you not know that???
>>> Radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the radio range. A typical radar gun
>>> emits photons that oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per second.
>> I can observe a certain star and find the Sodium D line pair but it
>> appears in the red portion of the spectrum. I can measure both their
>> frequencies and wavelengths and confirm this, both correspond to red
>> light, not the sodium yellow-orange. I can observe another star and
>> find the sodium D line pair but in the green region. Again, the
>> frequency and wavelengths correspond to green light, not yellow-orange.
>> So what are the frequencies of oscillation of the sodium light photons
>> I saw from the stars? A "red" frequency, a "green" frequency, the usual
>> sodium orange-yellow, or something else? An astronomer will us the
>> first star is receding and the second star is approaching which Doppler
>> shifts their light, affecting both frequency and wavelengths.
>
> Interesting. But it has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.
>
>>>
>>> The emitter inside a cesium atomic clock emits photons that oscillate at
>>> EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.
>> And if the clock is receding at 0.5c, what will I measure for its frequency?
>
> It will be lower, but there is no receding light in the double slit experiment.
>
> (snip more of the same)
>>>> Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
>>>> pattern.
>>>
>>> I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but photons are not "blocked."
>> That may be what YOU believe, but by "blocked" the photons aren't
>> contributing to the pattern just like any light encountering an opaque
>> object. They are absorbed as heat or reflected away.
>>> They are either absorbed and converted to heat, or they are absorbed
>>> and RE-EMITTED.
>> Which is what I meant by blocked. They don't contribute to the pattern
>> because they are absorbed or reflected away from where the pattern is.
>
> There is no evidence of that. Some photons get absorbed and turned into
> heat inside the device, but most photons get through the slits to form
> the patterns.
>
>>>
>>> And what about photons that just graze the sides of the slits?
>> SlitS as in plural? Does one photon go through both slits if it grazes
>> the sides? Explain?
>>> How can you believe those photons will not have their paths altered?
>> The question isn't whether the paths are altered but why are they
>> altered in specific ways under specific conditions.
>
> Because photons and electrons orbiting atoms work in predictable ways.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 12:06:38 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/30/21 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > there is no way to prove that a photon CANNOT interfere with itself.
> Yes, but not in the sense you mean -- it's easy to prove that a photon
> DOES interfere with itself, in the precise meaning of those words in
> QED. See below.
>
> [Remember that "photon" is part of the model (QED),
> not the world, and as QED is a mathematical model,
> such proof is possible.]
> > But there is simply no REASON to believe a photon somehow interferes
> > with itself.
> "Believe" -- no, because this is physics, not theology.
>
> Understand -- YES! Anybody who understands QED will understand this
> basic aspect of the theory; clearly that does not include Ed Lake.
>
> [Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is
> necessarily in the context of QED, because QED is what
> defines the concept "photon". So any discussion of
> photons involves the model, not the world.]
>
> In QED, to get the amplitude for detecting a photon at a given point,
> one sums up the amplitudes for all possible sources and all possible
> paths from each source to the point in question. For the double-slit
> experiment, there is only one source, and only two paths [#]. That
> summation of amplitudes for those two paths is what is meant by
> "interfering with itself". The MATH is clear, and the PHYSICS is clear;
> the English may be less clear, especially to people who don't know QED.
>
> [The probability of detecting a photon at that point is
> the magnitude squared of the (complex) amplitude
> discussed above.]
>
> [#] Neglecting the widths of the slits, and paths with
> negligible amplitudes.
>
> Whoever said this has been lost, but it is WRONG:
> >>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit.
> No, in the double-slit experiment, speaking loosely, a photon goes
> through both slits; the actual situation is more complicated (see above).
>
> Elsewhere Ed Lake asked:
> > How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go
> > through a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the
> > bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area outside of the
> > slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass through?
>
> Certainly in principle one must consider paths that hit the bar between
> the slits, hit the area outside the slits, and graze the edges of the
> slits (plus very many more). In a real experiment one must include these
> effects (most of which can easily be shown to be negligible). In a
> GEDANKEN like this, which is part of an ELEMENTARY discussion, such
> details can be neglected, because a) they are not important [@], and b)
> they obscure the point of the discussion.
>
> [@] None of the paths mentioned have non-negligible
> amplitude to reach the detector, so they don't
> significantly contribute to the sum.
>
> Note, please, that I am discussing PATHS, not photons here. In QED one
> computes the amplitude for a photon to hit the detector, and multiplies
> the corresponding probability by the intensity of the source(s). Here
> one does not really talk about multiple photons as Ed Lake seems to
> think (some elementary textbooks do so, as a manner of speaking, not a
> precise description of the theory).
>
> [More complex physical situations can involve multiple
> photons, each photon being an individual factor in the
> amplitude for a given path or process.]
>
> > [... further irrelevancies and nonsense ignored]
>
> Tom Roberts

So, the answer is that no one has come up with any NEW mathematical
models for the double slit experiment. So, it is as much of a MYSTERY
today as it was when Feynman wrote about it.

What I'm doing is looking at the "mystery" LOGICALLY. When looking at it
LOGICALLY, it doesn't seem to be much of a mystery. The only mystery is
why more people aren't looking at the mystery logically. Are they AFRAID
of solving the mystery without using mathematics?

Ed

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:08:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:07:17 PM UTC-5, bubba wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
> >>>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is
> >>>> possible does not make it impossible.
> >>>
> >>> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that a photon
> >>> CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON to believe
> >>> a photon somehow interferes with itself. The photon is going through a
> >>> barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely interact with
> >>> ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being TRANSFERRED from one
> >>> atom to another.
> >> you use terminology you know nothing about what it is. _interfere_ in
> >> this configuration stands for *exchange_of_energy*, thus rise or fall of
> >> energy level. Why should photons exchange energy, when such that will
> >> annihilate itself out of existence. Just think.
> >
> > Photons do not exchange energy from one photon to another. Photons
> > ARE energy that is being transferred from one ATOM to another.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> Photons interfering with each other does not involve transfer of energy
> from one photon to another.
> Interference is a phenomenon you have to learn about in first-year physics.
> It’s seen in other simple cases like two waves in ONE string, or in sound
> in a concert hall. There is no energy passed between the two interfering
> things in any of these cases.

Photons are oscillating particles, They are NOT "waves." So "cases like
two waves in one string" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY. Anyone
teaching such things is TEACHING CRAP.

>
> This is a fine example where it’s much better to slow down and learn the
> basics (here, interference in a first-year physics textbook) before
> encountering the subject in something more advanced like quantum mechanics
> and making all sorts of incorrect assumptions.

What you are saying is that I must memorize DOGMA so that I can repeat
it at will. Understanding what is happening is not necessary. And asking the
wrong questions can cause you to fail a course.

Sorry, but I'd rather ask questions than memorize dogma.

Ed

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 7:18:23 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks
> that are separated"? Your [reply] doesn't answer my question.

My reply carefully answered your question thoroughly and clearly. It explained precisely how the rates of separate clocks are compared by comparing their readings "at the same time". It then explained how the meaning of "at the same time" is physically established for each inertial system of reference, and why this results in reciprocal time dilation, and how experiments have substantiated this. If there is something about this that you think is wrong or unclear, go ahead and point it out.

> What CAUSES time to slow down for one atom has no bearing on what
> happens to any other atom.

Of course it doesn't, and that's consistent with what I explained. Again, we compare the rates of separate clocks (or elapsed proper times of separate atoms) by comparing their readings "at the same time", and the meaning of "at the same time" for inertial systems depends on the system of reference.. Changing the state of motion of Clock A doesn't change the functioning of Clock B, but it means that Clock A has a different system of reference, which changes the meaning of "at the same time" for comparing its readings with Clock B, and therefore the results of the comparison are different. Again, this isn't changing how B is functioning, it is changing how the comparison with A in terms of A's reference system is made.

> No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
> emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT.

But each of your individuals "photons" does not spread out. You admit this when you say "Each travels it OWN path away from the emitter". You see? Each of your "photons" follows some specific path. When you say "the photons spread out" you mean that some photons follow slightly different paths from the others, but you don't mean that any individual "photon" spreads out.... and this is why your beliefs cannot explain the observed interference pattern.

To explain the interference pattern with individual photons, you need some kind of "spreading out" of individual photons, because the behavior of the individual photons that go through (say) the Left slit depends on whether or not the Right slit is open. Quantum electrodynamics explains this by the "sum over paths" (as I've described in detail, and you've ignored), whereas your concept of a "photon" cannot explain it at all.

> > Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.
>
> No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen.

Then you can't explain the interference pattern when both slits are open. This was the whole point of the experiment, going all the way back to 1800, and this is why your concept of a "photon", a la Newton's "oscillating" corpuscles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain the interference effects. The particle theory of light was only resurrected when quantum effects were discovered, leading to the "sum over paths" approach. That's why a photon is not a classical particle, whereas your conception of a "photon" is a classical particle, because each of your "photons" has an individual singular path.

> If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
> and blue light?

Each photon of blue light has more energy than those of red light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. Note that the phase of an individual photon for an individual path does not change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the light.

> When photons can go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
> only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.

That is the classical image, but it doesn't account for the interference pattern. You see, with your concept of a "photon", each going through just one slit or the other, you would get a smooth (not striped) pattern with just the Left slit open, and you would get the same smooth pattern but shifted slightly to the right if just the Right slit is open, and if both slits are open you would get the sum of those two smooth patterns. You would not get any interference effects. That's why Young's experiment killed the Newton/Lake model of the "photon" 200 years ago.

Remember, when both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped" interference pattern of dark and light stripes, no photons ever land in the dark stripes. But if we close one of the slits, we find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons *can* land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open. That's why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 8:25:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:41:45 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> (snip repetitive crap)
>>>>> Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
>>>>> experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
>>>>> that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.
>>>> No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and
>>>> the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same,
>>>> regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get
>>>> interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating
>>>> or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.
>>>
>>> No, an oscillating particle will be affected by the slits in MANY
>>> DIFFERENT ways. How can you possibly believe that every photon
>>> is going to go through a slit without any problem? Why don't some
>>> photons hit the bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area
>>> outside of the slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass
>>> through?
>>
>> The only ones that contribute to the interference pattern are the ones that
>> pass through the slits without any kind of contact.
>
> That makes no sense! What happened to the photons that contacted the
> tungsten or interacted with the electromagnetic fields of the tungsten?

Photons don’t interact with electromagnetic fields. Photons are not
deflected or bent by electric or magnetic fields.

The photons that impact the tungsten deposit their energy in the tungsten,
if they happen to line up with a transition energy in tungsten atoms (which
isn’t often), or they get reflected.

The only ones that contribute to the pattern on the other side of the slits
are the ones that pass through without contact.

>
>>
>> This is demonstrated by changing the material of the plate in which the
>> slits are cut, changing the width of the slits themselves, and changing the
>> intensity of the light.
>>
>> See Feynman’s book on this subject.
>
> Here's a quote from pages 138 and 139 of Feynman's book:
>
> "This proposition that I am talking about is general. It is
> not just for two holes, but is a general proposition which
> can be stated this way. The probability of any event in an
> ideal experiment - that is just an experiment in which everything
> is specified as well as it can be - is the square of something,
> which in this case I have called 'a', the probability
> amplitude. When an event can occur in several alternative
> ways, the probability amplitude, this 'a' number, is the
> sum of the 'a's for each of the various alternatives.

Yes. Notice this is true even for one photon with two alternative paths.

Not two photons each following one of the alternatives. It’s even true for
the behavior of ONE photon with two alternative paths.

> If an
> experiment is performed which is capable of determining
> which alternative is taken, the probability of the event is
> changed; it is then the sum of the probabilities for each
> alternative. That is, you lose the interference.
> The question now is, how does it really work? What
> machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody knows
> any machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation
> of this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description
> of it. They can give you a wider explanation, in the sense
> that they can do more examples to show how it is impossible
> to tell which hole the electron goes through and not at
> the same time destroy the interference pattern. They can give
> a wider class of experiments than just the two slit interference
> experiment. But that is just repeating the same thing
> to drive it in. It is not any deeper; it is only wider. The
> mathematics can be made more precise; you can mention
> that they are complex numbers instead of real numbers,
> and a couple of other minor points which have nothing to
> do with the main idea. But the deep mystery is what I have
> described, and no one can go any deeper today."

That’s true.

>
> Feynman's "today" was around 1965. Today, an ANALYSIS
> of the problem should produce new answers, but mathematics
> will just produce the same answers as they did in 1965. Math
> hasn't changed much in the past half century.

Not new answers. A different explanation of the why, maybe, but not any
differences in the observed behavior.

Everything seen in observations to date is completely consistent with what
Feynman described.

I can understand your desire to get a “but what’s really going on” answer
that Feynman doesn’t provide. I think you’ll find that the available
explanations today are not written for laypeople without at least some
background in physics — so you may be at a dead-end for yourself at getting
a better answer that you can understand.

This does NOT mean that nobody knows the answer today.
This does NOT mean that your attempts to guess at what’s going on are going
to be right, because I guarantee you everything you have guessed so far has
been wrong. It is essentially impossible for someone without a background
in physics to guess the right answer.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:08:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 11:34:16 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 7:59:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side..
> >> You're confusing the classical electromagnetic field description with
> >> the photon description. A photon does not oscillate, for the reason
> >> explained several times.
> >
> > I learn by asking questions. You evidently learn by memorizing dogma.
> >
> > If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
> > and blue light? The answer I get is that Red light photons oscillate
> > about 460,000,000,000 times per second and blue light photons
> > oscillate about 630,000,000,000 times per second.
> No, that’s not correct. The difference between a red light photon and a
> blue light photon is that the blue-light photon has more energy than a
> red-light photon by a factor of 1.37.

A blue light photon has more energy than a red light photon BECAUSE
that energy is in the form of more frequent OSCILLATIONS.

>
> If you have a whole bunch of blue-light photons, then this will behave like
> a light wave of frequency 460GHz. But this does NOT mean the photons are
> oscillating at 460 GHz.

The number of photons just affects brightness. Each blue-light photon
oscillates at 460 THz. THERE ARE NO WAVES. There are just OSCILLATIONS
which have an up-down pattern similar to waves.
> >
> >>> If the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
> >>> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
> >>> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
> >>> re-emitted in some other direction.
> >> None of that explains the fact that when you "photon" goes through the
> >> Left slit, the possible landing places depends on whether the Right slit
> >> is open. I ask again: How do you explain this?
> >
> > The explanation is: YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG. When photons can
> > go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
> > only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.
> Nope. That doesn’t account for it. Feynman describes what it would look
> like if what you said were true. Then he also draws what it IN FACT looks
> like, which is different.

Feynman was talking about a MATHEMATICAL mystery. The solution is to
set aside the math and look at things logically.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 12:06:38 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 8/30/21 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> there is no way to prove that a photon CANNOT interfere with itself.
>> Yes, but not in the sense you mean -- it's easy to prove that a photon
>> DOES interfere with itself, in the precise meaning of those words in
>> QED. See below.
>>
>> [Remember that "photon" is part of the model (QED),
>> not the world, and as QED is a mathematical model,
>> such proof is possible.]
>>> But there is simply no REASON to believe a photon somehow interferes
>>> with itself.
>> "Believe" -- no, because this is physics, not theology.
>>
>> Understand -- YES! Anybody who understands QED will understand this
>> basic aspect of the theory; clearly that does not include Ed Lake.
>>
>> [Remember, please, that any discussion of photons is
>> necessarily in the context of QED, because QED is what
>> defines the concept "photon". So any discussion of
>> photons involves the model, not the world.]
>>
>> In QED, to get the amplitude for detecting a photon at a given point,
>> one sums up the amplitudes for all possible sources and all possible
>> paths from each source to the point in question. For the double-slit
>> experiment, there is only one source, and only two paths [#]. That
>> summation of amplitudes for those two paths is what is meant by
>> "interfering with itself". The MATH is clear, and the PHYSICS is clear;
>> the English may be less clear, especially to people who don't know QED.
>>
>> [The probability of detecting a photon at that point is
>> the magnitude squared of the (complex) amplitude
>> discussed above.]
>>
>> [#] Neglecting the widths of the slits, and paths with
>> negligible amplitudes.
>>
>> Whoever said this has been lost, but it is WRONG:
>>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit.
>> No, in the double-slit experiment, speaking loosely, a photon goes
>> through both slits; the actual situation is more complicated (see above).
>>
>> Elsewhere Ed Lake asked:
>>> How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go
>>> through a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the
>>> bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area outside of the
>>> slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass through?
>>
>> Certainly in principle one must consider paths that hit the bar between
>> the slits, hit the area outside the slits, and graze the edges of the
>> slits (plus very many more). In a real experiment one must include these
>> effects (most of which can easily be shown to be negligible). In a
>> GEDANKEN like this, which is part of an ELEMENTARY discussion, such
>> details can be neglected, because a) they are not important [@], and b)
>> they obscure the point of the discussion.
>>
>> [@] None of the paths mentioned have non-negligible
>> amplitude to reach the detector, so they don't
>> significantly contribute to the sum.
>>
>> Note, please, that I am discussing PATHS, not photons here. In QED one
>> computes the amplitude for a photon to hit the detector, and multiplies
>> the corresponding probability by the intensity of the source(s). Here
>> one does not really talk about multiple photons as Ed Lake seems to
>> think (some elementary textbooks do so, as a manner of speaking, not a
>> precise description of the theory).
>>
>> [More complex physical situations can involve multiple
>> photons, each photon being an individual factor in the
>> amplitude for a given path or process.]
>>
>>> [... further irrelevancies and nonsense ignored]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> So, the answer is that no one has come up with any NEW mathematical
> models for the double slit experiment. So, it is as much of a MYSTERY
> today as it was when Feynman wrote about it.

No, that’s not true. A lot has been done on the foundations of quantum
field theory since Feynman wrote about it.

>
> What I'm doing is looking at the "mystery" LOGICALLY. When looking at it
> LOGICALLY, it doesn't seem to be much of a mystery. The only mystery is
> why more people aren't looking at the mystery logically. Are they AFRAID
> of solving the mystery without using mathematics?

When you say “logically” what you are trying to say “without using math”.
That’s because you’d like to find a word that means thinking about things
without using math, and “logic” sounds flattering.

The problem, Ed, is that an idea can sound intuitively and visually
appealing and plausible (what you call “logical”) and still be flat wrong.
There will be nothing apparently wrong with the “mystery solved” idea, and
yet it will still be flat wrong. The way scientists check whether a
plausible idea is right or wrong is with a combination of calculations
compared with quantitative measurement, and with extensive testing to try
to rule out ideas. Neither of these things are in your wheelhouse, and so
you have no way to validate whether your plausible idea is correct or not.
Being intuitive and plausible is just not enough.

As an example of this, refer to your idea that photons are interacting with
tungsten in the material around the slits and that’s what accounts for the
double slit behavior. You are not aware that this is easy to check by
altering the widths of the slits and changing the surrounding material, and
you are not aware that those checks have already been done, even if they
are not easily Googlable. Secondly, scientists can take a model and
calculate HOW MUCH the spots in interference pattern are separated, and HOW
MUCH that changes with wavelength, and HOW MUCH the pattern should change
if the intensity is altered. And since all those things are also
measurable, that quantitative comparison is critical for validation. You
can’t calculate any of the HOW MUCH’s from your ideas, and so you have no
handle on this critical validation.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:29:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:44:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/30/2021 12:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> >>>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> >>>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> >>>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> >>>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> >>>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> >>>>> the "striped pattern."
> >>>> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
> >>>> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
> >>>
> >>> Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
> >>> on the screen shows that frequency.
> >> So why do they match what is predicted for an interference pattern?
> >
> > When you create a mathematical model to explain what you see, you
> > get a mathematical model that explains what you THINK you see. It
> > may not actually explain what is happening.
> >
> >> Why is the pattern different if there is only one slit vs. two slits?
> >> If the slits are the same, why doesn't it matter which slit is blocked
> >> to get the one slit pattern?
> >
> > When you have two slits, the photons get separated into two paths.
> > When you have only one slit, all photons must go along one path.
> >
> > (snip)
> >> OK, so your claim would predict that slits which are identical except
> >> for being in different materials will behave differently, because the
> >> different atoms in the slit device affect the light differently? Be
> >> careful...
> >
> > Different materials? You make no sense. The device is supposedly
> > made from tungsten.
> It doesn’t have to be. The one described by Feynman might have been made of
> tungsten. But I’ve made them myself with a variety of materials. I used a
> nonmetal grating in a first-year physics teaching lab. Then I bought one
> made of aluminum. I made one myself with a sheet of glass painted black,
> with the two slits made with two safety razor blades taped together. I made
> one out of thick-stock paper and an Exacto knife, a ruler, and a big
> magnifying glass to see what I was doing. The result is the same in all
> cases.
>
> I think what you’re not appreciating, Ed, is that these phenomena have been
> studied dozens of different ways, sometimes HUNDREDS of different ways, not
> just the one way you might have learned about by reading a popularization
> or a web page.
> >
> > (snip)
> >>> You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
> >>> fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device.
> >> So if I have identical sized slits in different metals I will see
> >> different results with photons of the same frequency?
> >
> > It might be a worthwhile experiment to try.
> It’s been done.

Okay. If changing the material that the double-slit device is made from
does not affect the results, then that means we cannot used different
materials to produce different results. It says NOTHING about what
is changing the trajectory of the photons. It just suggests that the
trajectory is affected the same way by all materials.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:08:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:07:17 PM UTC-5, bubba wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
>>>>>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is
>>>>>> possible does not make it impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that a photon
>>>>> CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON to believe
>>>>> a photon somehow interferes with itself. The photon is going through a
>>>>> barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely interact with
>>>>> ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being TRANSFERRED from one
>>>>> atom to another.
>>>> you use terminology you know nothing about what it is. _interfere_ in
>>>> this configuration stands for *exchange_of_energy*, thus rise or fall of
>>>> energy level. Why should photons exchange energy, when such that will
>>>> annihilate itself out of existence. Just think.
>>>
>>> Photons do not exchange energy from one photon to another. Photons
>>> ARE energy that is being transferred from one ATOM to another.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> Photons interfering with each other does not involve transfer of energy
>> from one photon to another.
>> Interference is a phenomenon you have to learn about in first-year physics.
>> It’s seen in other simple cases like two waves in ONE string, or in sound
>> in a concert hall. There is no energy passed between the two interfering
>> things in any of these cases.
>
> Photons are oscillating particles,

No, they’re not.

> They are NOT "waves."

Didn’t say they were. But interference is a general phenomenon with an
enormously wide range of applications, which is why it’s important to learn
that first.

> So "cases like
> two waves in one string" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

Two waves in one string is easy to demonstrate with a desktop kit. It’s
very real. You should try taking one of the courses where this is all
demonstrated live. It’s really surprising and refreshing.

> Anyone
> teaching such things is TEACHING CRAP.

I’m sorry, Ed, but just because you don’t feel you have the time to study
the basics is not grounds for calling it all crap. That’s as bad as you
telling people that what they reply to you with is just rote memorization.
It’s inaccurate and unfair.

>
>>
>> This is a fine example where it’s much better to slow down and learn the
>> basics (here, interference in a first-year physics textbook) before
>> encountering the subject in something more advanced like quantum mechanics
>> and making all sorts of incorrect assumptions.
>
> What you are saying is that I must memorize DOGMA so that I can repeat
> it at will.

No, not at all. Learning the basics does not require rote memorization. It
requires you to UNDERSTAND the basics. But it’s also true — and this is the
part that you probably object to most — you will fail at understanding it
if you try to just figure it out yourself on your own, without reading the
textbooks. You will make too many mistakes. That’s why people who want to
do physics have to take courses — there is no shortcut, even for an
analyst.

I think you’ve got a terrible perspective on education and how to learn
physics.

> Understanding what is happening is not necessary. And asking the
> wrong questions can cause you to fail a course.
>
> Sorry, but I'd rather ask questions than memorize dogma.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/31/2021 2:26 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Photon was created IN his 1901 paper, which was based on Maxwell and Rayleigh (he "borrowed" his ideas about BBC).

Don't forget it was Einstein who showed that Planck's quantized energy
wasn't theoretical, it was real in the form of the photon.
>
> And Planck explicitly said, afterwards: "energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete quantities at the resonators, but flows
> in the space as EM waves".

Since, at this point, Planck didn't understand that the photon was a
real particle, not merely quantized absorbtion/emission of energy. It
was Einstein who did that.

And such discrete quantities multiples of ϵ = hʋ contain the root of
the artificial concept of
> photons, which is very useful to synthesize the action of tedious equations for EM waves acting on atoms, but creating
> the conflict about the wave-particle behavior of light (still unsolved).
>
> Analyzing in depth Planck's concepts about classic EM physics and quantum physics, the concept of the photon is right there:

....just waiting for Einstein to show it was real..

(just rubbing Richard's nose in it.... :-) )

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:08:20 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 11:34:16 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 7:59:24 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side.
>>>> You're confusing the classical electromagnetic field description with
>>>> the photon description. A photon does not oscillate, for the reason
>>>> explained several times.
>>>
>>> I learn by asking questions. You evidently learn by memorizing dogma.
>>>
>>> If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
>>> and blue light? The answer I get is that Red light photons oscillate
>>> about 460,000,000,000 times per second and blue light photons
>>> oscillate about 630,000,000,000 times per second.
>> No, that’s not correct. The difference between a red light photon and a
>> blue light photon is that the blue-light photon has more energy than a
>> red-light photon by a factor of 1.37.
>
> A blue light photon has more energy than a red light photon BECAUSE
> that energy is in the form of more frequent OSCILLATIONS.

No, it just does have more energy. The cause you suppose isn’t necessary.

>
>>
>> If you have a whole bunch of blue-light photons, then this will behave like
>> a light wave of frequency 460GHz. But this does NOT mean the photons are
>> oscillating at 460 GHz.
>
> The number of photons just affects brightness. Each blue-light photon
> oscillates at 460 THz. THERE ARE NO WAVES.

Of course there are waves in large assemblages of photons. You can generate
all sorts of wave behavior in dozens of different ways, ranging from
Newton’s rings to standing waves in microwave cavities, from Brewster’s
angle in polarization to anti glare coatings on sunglasses, from radio
antenna design to Michelson interferometers. You are unfamiliar with all
these wave phenomena in light?

> There are just OSCILLATIONS
> which have an up-down pattern similar to waves.
>
>>>
>>>>> If the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
>>>>> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
>>>>> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
>>>>> re-emitted in some other direction.
>>>> None of that explains the fact that when you "photon" goes through the
>>>> Left slit, the possible landing places depends on whether the Right slit
>>>> is open. I ask again: How do you explain this?
>>>
>>> The explanation is: YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG. When photons can
>>> go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
>>> only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.
>> Nope. That doesn’t account for it. Feynman describes what it would look
>> like if what you said were true. Then he also draws what it IN FACT looks
>> like, which is different.
>
> Feynman was talking about a MATHEMATICAL mystery. The solution is to
> set aside the math and look at things logically.

No, he wasn’t talking about a mathematical mystery. As I said, if what you
said were true, Feynman describes what you’d see, which isn’t what is
actually seen.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:29:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:44:25 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/2021 12:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>>>>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>>>>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>>>>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>>>>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>>>>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>>>>>> the "striped pattern."
>>>>>> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
>>>>>> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
>>>>> on the screen shows that frequency.
>>>> So why do they match what is predicted for an interference pattern?
>>>
>>> When you create a mathematical model to explain what you see, you
>>> get a mathematical model that explains what you THINK you see. It
>>> may not actually explain what is happening.
>>>
>>>> Why is the pattern different if there is only one slit vs. two slits?
>>>> If the slits are the same, why doesn't it matter which slit is blocked
>>>> to get the one slit pattern?
>>>
>>> When you have two slits, the photons get separated into two paths.
>>> When you have only one slit, all photons must go along one path.
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>> OK, so your claim would predict that slits which are identical except
>>>> for being in different materials will behave differently, because the
>>>> different atoms in the slit device affect the light differently? Be
>>>> careful...
>>>
>>> Different materials? You make no sense. The device is supposedly
>>> made from tungsten.
>> It doesn’t have to be. The one described by Feynman might have been made of
>> tungsten. But I’ve made them myself with a variety of materials. I used a
>> nonmetal grating in a first-year physics teaching lab. Then I bought one
>> made of aluminum. I made one myself with a sheet of glass painted black,
>> with the two slits made with two safety razor blades taped together. I made
>> one out of thick-stock paper and an Exacto knife, a ruler, and a big
>> magnifying glass to see what I was doing. The result is the same in all
>> cases.
>>
>> I think what you’re not appreciating, Ed, is that these phenomena have been
>> studied dozens of different ways, sometimes HUNDREDS of different ways, not
>> just the one way you might have learned about by reading a popularization
>> or a web page.
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>> You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
>>>>> fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device.
>>>> So if I have identical sized slits in different metals I will see
>>>> different results with photons of the same frequency?
>>>
>>> It might be a worthwhile experiment to try.
>> It’s been done.
>
> Okay. If changing the material that the double-slit device is made from
> does not affect the results, then that means we cannot used different
> materials to produce different results. It says NOTHING about what
> is changing the trajectory of the photons. It just suggests that the
> trajectory is affected the same way by all materials.

Which means that it can’t have to do with the specific interactions of the
photons with the atoms, and it can’t depend on whether the material is an
electrical conductor or an insulator, and it can’t depend on the heaviness
of the atoms, and so on and on. So now you’re going to be much harder
pressed to answer that the photon interference pattern still has to do with
the interaction with the matter, if you can change EVERYTHING about the
nature of the matter and the answer doesn’t change. Now the assumption that
it has to do with photon-matter interaction starts to get a little
stretched.

The lesson in this is to mark the difference between a QUESTION (like “How
do we know that the matter-photon interactions don’t account for everything
in the pattern?”) and an ASSERTION (like “You just have to realize that an
oscillating photon is interacting with the fields fo the atoms that
comprise the two slit device.”) A question has a much different tone than
an assertion. An assertion sounds like an overconfident guess, which in
this case it is, and it’ll do nothing but produce backlash. Just consider
that.

If you feel that just asking questions makes you feel small and
insignificant, then perhaps that attitude is the thing that needs
attention.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables