Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND it's associated wave

[mpc755]

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and it's associated wave in the aether.

"While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored." - John Bell

In the following two articles the aether is what waves in a double slit experiment. In the first article the aether has mass.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

"This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it" ...

... and displace it.

'EPR program: a local interpretation of QM'

http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5612

"Wave particle duality is described as the compound system of point particle plus accompanying wave (in the æther)."

In the following articles Louis de Broglie describes wave-particle duality as a moving particle and it's associated wave in a hidden subquantic medium.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.â€Â

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact†with a hidden mediumâ€Â

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether.

"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.

"the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave"

The particle occupies a very small region of the associated aether wave.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?

A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

[Gaarst]

Wave-particle duality is a well known concept, discovered in the early XXth century and serves as base for most of the quantum theory: it is unanimously accepted, hence my question:

What is the point of such a theard ? It discusses a concept accepted by everyone, explained, proven empirically, and doesn't directly open on any form of discussion. There is barely any analysis at all, just a collection of articles and quotes.

Even at high-school level physics, you at least get to hear about WP duality, and if not in school chances are you already looked it up by yourself if you're interested in physics at least a little. So, I don't think such a thread was absolutely necessary here, in a forum in which most of users have gone beyond college in scientific subjects, and where those who didn't still have a strong interest in physics, and thus know the basics.

Also, though I don't think I got where you where going with your thinking, I saw you mentionned "aether" several times. It is commonly accepted by most of the scientific community that aether theories are not correct, and a mis-interpretation of phenomenons we didn't understand at the time they were created (eg: relativity, cf Michelson-Morley experiment).

Even though remnants of aether theories exist in modern physics, what they describe is often similar to the "vacuum state" in quantum physics (or quantum fluctuations if you prefer). From what I understood, in your post aether is still referred to as the old conception we had of it, as a "background" for all interactions (WP duality in your post).

Also, I don't think you got the concept of WP duality correctly, especially when describing the double slit experiment. A particle is always defined as a wave, with given DeBroglie wavelength depending on its momentum, an it can in no way be separated from it in a slit experiment.

The concept of a particle going through one slit and the the wave though the other one is just false, nothing more.

In a double slit experiment, you can't predict the position of a particle, neither can you tell through which slit it went or which trajectory it took. This is because such an experiment uses diffraction and therefore the wave properties of the particle. From then, due to basic wave physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you just cannot treat the particle as a defined point in space and time; you can only make assumptions using probabilities, which is the root of quantum physics.

So really, this post is just quoting, doesn't bring debate by its structure, and if it does by content, it's just because you draw false conclusions from spare pieces of an established and proven theory which you try to transform into something else.

I'm sorry if my post appeared rude in any way, it's just that there have been a lot of similar threads started with just a title, a link, and no opening to debate, analysis or whatsoever (not going to cite any name because that's not my point).

While I don't usually react to those, you misunderstanding of WP duality made me write this post, hoping to be able to correct you and try to bring a discussion.

I am open to questions or criticism, as long as it is justified.

TL;DR: this post is both pointless and full of mistakes.

[mpc755]

Wave-particle duality is a well known concept, discovered in the early XXth century and serves as base for most of the quantum theory: it is unanimously accepted, hence my question:

What is the point of such a theard ? It discusses a concept accepted by everyone, explained, proven empirically, and doesn't directly open on any form of discussion. There is barely any analysis at all, just a collection of articles and quotes.

Even at high-school level physics, you at least get to hear about WP duality, and if not in school chances are you already looked it up by yourself if you're interested in physics at least a little. So, I don't think such a thread was absolutely necessary here, in a forum in which most of users have gone beyond college in scientific subjects, and where those who didn't still have a strong interest in physics, and thus know the basics.

Also, though I don't think I got where you where going with your thinking, I saw you mentionned "aether" several times. It is commonly accepted by most of the scientific community that aether theories are not correct, and a mis-interpretation of phenomenons we didn't understand at the time they were created (eg: relativity, cf Michelson-Morley experiment).

Even though remnants of aether theories exist in modern physics, what they describe is often similar to the "vacuum state" in quantum physics (or quantum fluctuations if you prefer). From what I understood, in your post aether is still referred to as the old conception we had of it, as a "background" for all interactions (WP duality in your post).

Also, I don't think you got the concept of WP duality correctly, especially when describing the double slit experiment. A particle is always defined as a wave, with given DeBroglie wavelength depending on its momentum, an it can in no way be separated from it in a slit experiment.

The concept of a particle going through one slit and the the wave though the other one is just false, nothing more.

In a double slit experiment, you can't predict the position of a particle, neither can you tell through which slit it went or which trajectory it took. This is because such an experiment uses diffraction and therefore the wave properties of the particle. From then, due to basic wave physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you just cannot treat the particle as a defined point in space and time; you can only make assumptions using probabilities, which is the root of quantum physics.

So really, this post is just quoting, doesn't bring debate by its structure, and if it does by content, it's just because you draw false conclusions from spare pieces of an established and proven theory which you try to transform into something else.

I'm sorry if my post appeared rude in any way, it's just that there have been a lot of similar threads started with just a title, a link, and no opening to debate, analysis or whatsoever (not going to cite any name because that's not my point).

While I don't usually react to those, you misunderstanding of WP duality made me write this post, hoping to be able to correct you and try to bring a discussion.

I am open to questions or criticism, as long as it is justified.

TL;DR: this post is both pointless and full of mistakes.

If you had read the quote from John Bell and made an attempt to understand it you would have understood the reason for the thread.

In mainstream physics the wave-function wave is thought to be physically real. In mainstream physics the particle is the wave. This is incorrect. Wave-particle duality is a particle and a wave. In mainstream physics, in a double slit experiment, they can't even understand the particle always travels through a single slit.

'The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics'

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

de Broglie's double solution theory, which is the correct interpretation, isn't even listed. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments and there is a physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium. It is the physical wave in the physical medium that waves.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mpc755

[Gaarst]

If you had read the quote from John Bell and made an attempt to understand it you would have understood the reason for the thread.

I read it, and I still don't get the reason for the thread. Is it because of a doubt towards the conclusions of DeBroglie ? Because from what I understood, Bell does nothing but comment on DeBroglie's theory, and gives support for it. If I'm wrong, please explain me what you understood that I didn't.

In mainstream physics the wave-function wave is thought to be physically real. In mainstream physics the particle is the wave. This is incorrect. Wave-particle duality is a particle and a wave. In mainstream physics they can't even understand the particle always travels through a single slit.

What do you mean by "mainstream physics" ? And why does it seem so bad/ignorant ? Who is "they" ? How do you support your statement that "This is incorrect." ?

From my point of view, this is an extremely arrogant statement: you're right, while the others are wrong/stupid. Others which are people who probably know more about physics than any of us ever will.

And I don't know what you exactly thought/meant, but it is commonly accepted that WP duality means that a particle is a particle and a wave. A particle has both wave and "solid" particle behaviour, at the same time.

A particle is a wave as much as it is a "solid" particle. One aspects prevails depending on the type of measurement or experience, but that's all.

And again, no, you cannot say that a particle travels through a single slit, neither can anyone. You can only describe the path of the particle by probabilites, this is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and if you're disagreeing with this, you're disagreeing with the whole quantum theory.

'The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics'

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

de Broglie's double solution theory, which is the correct interpretation as there is the wave-function wave which is statistical non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments and the physical wave in a hidden subquantic medium isn't even listed.

Nice try, but the De Broglie-Bohm theory has nothing to do with the double slit experiment here. The De Broglie-Bohm theory is essentially a hidden variables theory which tries to justify the probabilistic aspects of the quantum theory by arguing that it is incomplete. The discovery of a theory superseeding the quantum theory would get rid of its uncertainties and comfort the deterministic view of a part of the scientific community.

Recent experiments tend to show that hidden variables theories in general are incorrect, hence the result of your graph; which, I say it again, has nothing to do with double slit experiment.

[mpc755]

I read it, and I still don't get the reason for the thread. Is it because of a doubt towards the conclusions of DeBroglie ? Because from what I understood, Bell does nothing but comment on DeBroglie's theory, and gives support for it. If I'm wrong, please explain me what you understood that I didn't.

What do you mean by "mainstream physics" ? And why does it seem so bad/ignorant ? Who is "they" ? How do you support your statement that "This is incorrect." ?

From my point of view, this is an extremely arrogant statement: you're right, while the others are wrong/stupid. Others which are people who probably know more about physics than any of us ever will.

And I don't know what you exactly thought/meant, but it is commonly accepted that WP duality means that a particle is a particle and a wave. A particle has both wave and "solid" particle behaviour, at the same time.

A particle is a wave as much as it is a "solid" particle. One aspects prevails depending on the type of measurement or experience, but that's all.

And again, no, you cannot say that a particle travels through a single slit, neither can anyone. You can only describe the path of the particle by probabilites, this is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and if you're disagreeing with this, you're disagreeing with the whole quantum theory.

Nice try, but the De Broglie-Bohm theory has nothing to do with the double slit experiment here. The De Broglie-Bohm theory is essentially a hidden variables theory which tries to justify the probabilistic aspects of the quantum theory by arguing that it is incomplete. The discovery of a theory superseeding the quantum theory would get rid of its uncertainties and comfort the deterministic view of a part of the scientific community.

Recent experiments tend to show that hidden variables theories in general are incorrect, hence the result of your graph; which, I say it again, has nothing to do with double slit experiment.

I am not discussing de Broglie-Bohm theory as de Broglie disagreed with it.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS

A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION

by

LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

de Broglie says it is impossible to attribute physical reality to the wave-function wave.

There are two waves in de Broglie's double solution theory. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in the hidden subquantic medium which guides the particle.

de Broglie-Bohm theory should be called Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with it.

"In addition, we will see that, for particle systems, the [wave-function] wave is propagated in a configuration space, which is an abstract and fictitious space."

Bohmian mechanics: configuration space is real and is what waves in terms of the pilot-wave.

de Broglie's double solution theory: configuration space is fictitious. It is a mathematical construct. It doesn't physically exist. The guiding wave exists in a physically real hidden medium.

[Gaarst]

De Broglie's double solution theory, otherwise known as the pilot wave theory, is considered as a hidden variable theory. Though is is different from the De Broglie-Bohm thoery, it is still part of the hidden variables theory category.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see where you are going, or what you are arguing.

If this was meant to be an answer to my post, I can neither agree nor disagree with you as I don't see the link. I mentioned the De Broglie-Bohm theory only because one of your link mentioned it, and you interpreted it for what it isn't. This was not the main point of my previous comment.

[mpc755]

De Broglie's double solution theory, otherwise known as the pilot wave theory, is considered as a hidden variable theory. Though is is different from the De Broglie-Bohm thoery, it is still part of the hidden variables theory category.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see where you are going, or what you are arguing.

If this was meant to be an answer to my post, I can neither agree nor disagree with you as I don't see the link. I mentioned the De Broglie-Bohm theory only because one of your link mentioned it, and you interpreted it for what it isn't. This was not the main point of my previous comment.

[snip] de Broglie's double solution theory is not pilot-wave theory. That's the "to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory" part in the following quote.

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory."

In pilot-wave theory the pilot wave physically exists in configuration space.

de Broglie says configuration space doesn't exist.

"In addition, we will see that, for particle systems, the [wave-function] wave is propagated in a configuration space, which is an abstract and fictitious space."

In de Broglie's double solution theory the wave-function wave is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist. It is the physical wave in the physical medium which guides the particle.

pilot-wave theory: one wave. The wave-function wave is the pilot-wave.

de Broglie's double solution theory: two waves. A wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments and the physical wave in the physical medium which guides the particle.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Vanamonde

[Gaarst]

When I say I don't know where you're going, I'm not talking about De Broglie's theories, I'm talking about the fact you're going completely off topic relative to the post you answered.

I don't know that much about De Broglie's theories so you might be right, but that is not the point.

[KSK]

Tying to get people to correctly understand wave-particle duality.

Well in that case I suggest you present a coherent argument rather than a random mashup of cherry picked quotes, patronising asides, unsupported assertions and random factoids taken out of context. Bonus points if you manage to do that without starting yet another new thread to do it.

For example:

In mainstream physics the wave-function wave is thought to be physically real.

Link please? So far as I'm aware this is very much not part of mainstream physics.

[mpc755]

When I say I don't know where you're going, I'm not talking about De Broglie's theories, I'm talking about the fact you're going completely off topic relative to the post you answered.

I don't know that much about De Broglie's theories so you might be right, but that is not the point.

de Broglie has two theories. He started off with his double solution theory. He then went on to his pilot-wave theory. He wound up figuring out that the wave-function wave doesn't exist. It is a mathematical construct only. This meant the pilot-wave could not in any way be represented by the wave-function wave. He then went back to his original thinking which was his double solution theory.

First and foremost, de Broglie's double solution theory is not a pilot-wave theory. de Broglie's double solution theory has nothing to do with de Broglie-Bohm theory. de Broglie-Bohm theory is Bohm's pilot-wave theory. It should be called Bohmian mechanics as de Broglie disagreed with it.

Just as in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes, the particle in a double slit experiment passes through a single slit even when you don't detect it.

Just as in a boat double slit experiment the bow wave passes through both slits, in a double slit experiment, the wave in the physical medium passes through both slits.

[mpc755]

Well in that case I suggest you present a coherent argument rather than a random mashup of cherry picked quotes, patronising asides, unsupported assertions and random factoids taken out of context. Bonus points if you manage to do that without starting yet another new thread to do it.

Mainstream physics thinks the particle is the wave. This is incorrect. Wave-particle duality is a particle and a wave. The particle is always a particle and the associated wave is always a wave.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Vanamonde

[Gaarst]

This is great and all, but do you at least understand de Broglie's double solution theory is not pilot-wave/de Broglie-Bohm/Bohmian mechanics theory?

We need to at least settle that.

I don't know that much about De Broglie's theories so you might be right

Off topic anyway.

You started arguing about these theories while I was commenting on your original post.

[mpc755]

Off topic anyway.

You started arguing about these theories while I was commenting on your original post.

Everything you were saying in your original post was incorrect because you thought de Broglie's double solution theory was de Broglie-Bohm/Bohmian mechanics/pilot-wave theory.

In de Broglie's double solution theory, which is what I have been discussing since my original post, in a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the hidden medium which passes through both.

In your original post you were insisting that wasn't the case because you incorrectly thought de Broglie's double solution theory was pilot-wave theory.

I don't know that much about De Broglie's theories so you might be right, but that is not the point.

Understanding de Broglie's double solution theory is the point.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mpc755

[Gaarst]

Everything you were saying in your original post was incorrect because you thought de Broglie's double solution theory was de Broglie-Bohm/Bohmian mechanics/pilot-wave theory.

In de Broglie's double solution theory, which is what I have been discussing since my original post, in a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the hidden medium which passes through both.

In your original post you were insisting that wasn't the case because you incorrectly thought de Broglie's double solution theory was pilot-wave theory.

You are the one who tried to counter my argument about the double slit experiment by bringing up the (off topic at the time) De Broglie-Bohm theory, with this very link:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

Link that was, BTW, posted in an answer (to my first post) which was already off topic.

My original post mentioned nowhere the De Broglie-Bohm theory, pilot-wave, or double solution. I invite you to go read it again.

Please at least be consistent with yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Understanding de Broglie's double solution theory is the point.

I'll say it once more:

The De Broglie double solution has nothing to do with my original post.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Vanamonde

[mpc755]

I'll say it once more:

The De Broglie double solution has nothing to do with my original post.

Please learn how to read.

Your original post:

A particle is always defined as a wave

Not in de Broglie's double solution theory.

The concept of a particle going through one slit and the the wave though the other one is just false, nothing more.

Not in de Broglie's double solution theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mpc755

[Gaarst]

And with what evidence do you back up the de Broglie double solution theory ?

With what evidence do you back up a 90 years-old result which goes against what the quantum theory is based on ?

Just because you think this theory is right doesn't make it the answer to the universe. You're not omniscient.

Anyway, since you've been carefully avoiding the point of my original post, always taking shelter in your double solution thingy, I think I won't go anywhere arguing with you any more.

I've lost enough of my time doing so, I'm off.

[mpc755]

And with what evidence do you back up the de Broglie double solution theory ?

With what evidence do you back up a 90 years-old result which goes against what the quantum theory is based on ?

Just because you think this theory is right doesn't make it the answer to the universe. You're not omniscient.

Anyway, since you've been carefully avoiding the point of my original post, always taking shelter in your double solution thingy, I think I won't go anywhere arguing with you any more.

I've lost enough of my time doing so, I'm off.

You are able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes.

It's no different for the particle in a double slit experiment.

The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

In a boat double slit experiment the boat always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit.

In a double slit experiment the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

When you suggest the particle does not travel through a single slit when you don't detect it is the same thing as stating the boat doesn't travel through a single slit when you close your eyes.

[Vanamonde]

Some posts have been edited or entirely removed from this thread. Firstly, we need to remind all sides to not throw personal attacks around simply because someone does not agree with you. Secondly, if you believe a post is a problem, hit the report button rather than replying to it yourself and cluttering the forum with personal comments which just make the situation unpleasant for everyone. Thirdly, if someone is wrong about something, that is not a matter for forum moderation to decide. Please don't try to call us in to punish someone for being wrong, because the purpose of the forum's moderation is not to decide truth, but to keep discussions polite while you folks make up your own minds about the subject at hand. In conclusion, keep the discussions about the subject and leave each other's personalities out of it.

[Starhawk]

You are able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes.

It's no different for the particle in a double slit experiment.

The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

First things first. The luminiferous aether was a 19th century concept that is universally understood to be incorrect within modern physics.

While I am not a physicist, I have read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and the double slit experiment. My understanding of the core elements of the double-slit experiment is as follows.

When the light is projected through the two slits, an interference pattern forms on the screen behind, showing evidence of wave phenomena at the slits. If one slit is covered, the interference pattern disappears.

Strangely, when you reduce the amount of light sent through the slits to one photon at a time, the interference pattern still builds up over time.

Variations on the experiment have been done which place detectors at the slits to see which slit the photon passed through. The result is that the photon is measured to pass through one slit or the other, but never both. The important part, however, is that the interference pattern disappears when detectors are placed at the slits.

If a detector is placed at only one of the slits, the interference pattern also disappears and the detector will measure a photon half the time.

The point that I always see made about these experiments is that we can measure particle aspects of the photon such as location (which slit it passed through) or we can measure wave aspects by allowing the interference pattern to build up on the screen, but we cannot measure both at the same time.

This is the core of the idea of wave-particle duality as I understand it. We can measure a photon acting as a wave or measure it acting as a particle, but never both at the same time.

Happy landings!

Edited October 14, 2015 by Starhawk

[mpc755]

First things first. The luminiferous aether was a 19th century concept that is universally understood to be incorrect within modern physics.

While I am not a physicist, I have read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and the double slit experiment. My understanding of the core elements of the double-slit experiment is as follows.

When the light is projected through the two slits, an interference pattern forms on the screen behind, showing evidence of wave phenomena at the slits. If one slit is covered, the interference pattern disappears.

Strangely, when you reduce the amount of light sent through the slits to one photon at a time, the interference pattern still builds up over time.

Variations on the experiment have been done which place detectors at the slits to see which slit the photon passed through. The result is that the photon is measured to pass through one slit or the other, but never both. The important part, however, is that the interference pattern disappears when detectors are placed at the slits.

If a detector is placed at only one of the slits, the interference pattern also disappears and the detector will measure a photon half the time.

The point that I always see made about these experiments is that you can measure particle aspects of the photon such as location (which slit it passed through) or you can measure wave aspects by allowing the interference pattern to build up on the screen, but we cannot measure both at the same time.

This is the core of the idea of wave-particle duality as I understand it. We can measure a photon acting as a wave or measure it acting as a particle, but never both at the same time.

Happy landings!

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the space unoccupied by particles of matter.

You can call 'it' whatever you want. The space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

You can call it plenum, ether, aether, quintessence, quantum foam, quantum vacuum or make up your own term. I prefer the term aether when describing the mass which fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter.

When you place a detector at the exit to a slit you destroy the cohesion of the associated wave exiting that slit with the wave exiting the other slit and the waves exiting both slits will no longer create wave interference.

'1st place: Shifting the morals of quantum measurement'

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/dec/16/physics-world-reveals-its-top-10-breakthroughs-for-2011

"Using an emerging technique called "weak measurement", the team is the first to track the average paths of single photons passing through a Young's double-slit experiment – something that Steinberg says physicists had been "brainwashed" into thinking is impossible."

'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."'

'New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle'

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave which passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle causes a loss of cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and it does not form an interference pattern.

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mpc755

[Steel]

So from what I can see you're just a subscriber of the Pilot Wave interpretation of QM. You're completely entitled to your view, but equally it is just a view and so trying to force it on people like this is unlikely to be popular. The equivalent is someone opening up a post saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the many worlds interpretation is wrong.

[mpc755]

So from what I can see you're just a subscriber of the Pilot Wave interpretation of QM. You're completely entitled to your view, but equally it is just a view and so trying to force it on people like this is unlikely to be popular. The equivalent is someone opening up a post saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the many worlds interpretation is wrong.

Not pilot-wave theory. de Broglie's double solution theory is not pilot-wave theory. In pilot-wave theory the wave-function wave is the pilot-wave. In pilot-wave theory the pilot-wave exists in configuration space. In de Broglie's double solution theory configuration space is a mathematical construct only. It doesn't physically exist and neither does the wave-function wave. The wave-function wave is statistical, non-physical and used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. It is the physical wave in a "hidden subquantic medium" which guides the particle.

Many-worlds is not a theory as it is untestable. All we can test for occurs in this world.

It's as simple as the following:

You are able to understand the boat in a boat double slit experiment travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes.

The particle in a double slit experiment travels through a single slit even when you do not observe it. It is the associated physical wave in the subquantic medium which passes through both.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mpc755

[Steel]

You are able to understand the boat in a boat double slit experiment travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes.

Why does the universe have to work in a way that makes sense to us?

Surely I can say:

"you are able to understand that when a particle is fired at the slit it creates an interference pattern which is why we see the phenomena associated with the double slit experiment"

an be equally valid because at the end of the day we're discussing the interpretation of the QM, not the actual theory, so it's impossible to prove either of us is right?

[mpc755]

Why does the universe have to work in a way that makes sense to us?

Why not?

Why not understand the boat always travels through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment?

Why not understand the particle always travels through a single slit in a double slit experiment?

Both of the above are correct. Why not understand them?

Surely I can say:

"you are able to understand that when a particle is fired at the slit it creates an interference pattern which is why we see the phenomena associated with the double slit experiment"

an be equally valid because at the end of the day we're discussing the interpretation of the QM, not the actual theory, so it's impossible to prove either of us is right?

Sure, you can interpret the boat not to travel through a single slit when you close your eyes if you choose to. However, you are incorrect.

Sure, you can interpret the particle not to travel through a single slit when you don't observer it if you choose to. However, you are incorrect.

In a boat double slit experiment the boat always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit.

In a double slit experiment the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

Why not stop making up nonsense?

[Steel]

Why not?

Why not understand the boat always travels through a single slit in a boat double slit experiment?

Why not understand the particle always travels through a single slit in a double slit experiment?

Both of the above are correct. Why not understand them?

Sure, you can interpret the boat not to travel through a single slit when you close your eyes if you choose to. However, you are incorrect.

Sure, you can interpret the particle not to travel through a single slit when you don't observer it if you choose to. However, you are incorrect.

In a boat double slit experiment the boat always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the boat always travels through a single slit.

In a double slit experiment the particle always detected traveling through a single slit is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

Why not stop making up nonsense?

This is where my issue lies, not that you have a different interpretation, but that you say everyone else is definitely wrong. My only question is how do you know I am wrong?