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

[mpc755]

Who cares what you call the thing that "waves"? Is it local? No, because it has interference properties. Is that the thing that interacts with detector? Yes, because otherwise interference wouldn't go away when detector detects the particle passing through it. So really, what we are detecting is the passage of that wave. The "particle"? We don't even care. It doesn't interact with anything, but if you insist that it's there, it's a violation of Bell's Inequalities. Again, you can't have it both ways.

And if you spend just a little bit of time actually studying the subject, instead of parroting quotes from all sorts of sources without understanding as much as a single formula, maybe then you'd have a chance to understand some of it. But you're not even making an effort. Sit down and derive interference, at least. With any model. Something other than just throwing around quotes you don't understand.

Having wave-particle duality be a physical particle and a physical wave does not violate Bell's inequality.

In a double slit experiment the particle is detected.

As the wave physically exits both slits it creates wave interference. As the particle physically exists a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference causing it to form an interference pattern.

Placing detectors at the exits to the slits causes a loss of cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

Edited October 17, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

You do understand that what you're doing is telling a fairy tail, right? It's religion, not science. At best.

You cannot simply say, "it looses cohesion". What is it about the interaction that does that? Describe the actual interaction between particle and wave, and how interaction with detector causes that loss of "cohesion". I'm not seriously expecting you to be able to. I know you can't. I need you to understand that you can't. And that it's not how any sort of a scientific model works. It's how Sunday Church works.

But even without getting into all of that, and even if we pretend that your explanation makes sense, we look at more experiments and it quickly collapses. If the particle looses "cohesion" with the wave, how in the world does delayed choice quantum eraser work? Particle tracks back, finds its lost wave, and gains "cohesion" again? You might as well drop all pretense and call it magic for all the ad-hoc nonsense you've been dropping.

[mpc755]

You do understand that what you're doing is telling a fairy tail, right? It's religion, not science. At best.

You cannot simply say, "it looses cohesion". What is it about the interaction that does that? Describe the actual interaction between particle and wave, and how interaction with detector causes that loss of "cohesion". I'm not seriously expecting you to be able to. I know you can't. I need you to understand that you can't. And that it's not how any sort of a scientific model works. It's how Sunday Church works.

But even without getting into all of that, and even if we pretend that your explanation makes sense, we look at more experiments and it quickly collapses. If the particle looses "cohesion" with the wave, how in the world does delayed choice quantum eraser work? Particle tracks back, finds its lost wave, and gains "cohesion" again? You might as well drop all pretense and call it magic for all the ad-hoc nonsense you've been dropping.

The following is a so-called 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment.

There are two interference patterns being generated at D0 regardless of what else occurs in the experiment. The two interference patterns overlap and form a bell curve. It is the interaction with the second beam splitter which allows one interference pattern to be discerned from the other.

The BBO crystal creates a downconverted photon pair. Let's call one set of photons the 'up' photon and the other the 'down' photon. The 'up' photons are creating an interference pattern at D0. The 'down' photon is creating an interference pattern at D0.

Both 'up' and 'down' photons arrive at D3 and D4 which correspond to the 'up' and 'down' photons which arrive at D0 which form a bell curve.

One set of photons arrives at D1 and the other set arrive at D2. This allows the two interference patterns which are being created at D0 to be discerned.

The following is an image of the experiment I am proposing.

Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSac and BSbc. Replace mirror Ma with BSac and replace mirror Mb with BSbc. Have BSac and BSbc at the same angle with respect to the path the light wave travels. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors Dac1, Dac2, Dbc1, and Dbc2.

Have the photons which interact with BSac be detected at Dac1 and Dac2. Have the photons which interact with BSbc be detected at Dbc1 and Dbc2. Setup the experiment so photons arrive at Dac1, Dac2, Dbc1 and Dbc2 in equal numbers.

If you compare the photons detected at Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at Dac2 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern.

Interference patterns do not even need to be created at the other detectors in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0. The which-way of the idler photons will be known and the interference patterns at D0 will still be discerned.

Edited October 17, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

What. Utter. Nonsense.

Not only does the first set of beam splitters do nothing, but your second set is setup incorrectly as well. Do you even understand what a beam splitter does? Because it doesn't look like it.

And the fact that you did not understand anything about how DCQE works is no surprise, of course. But you seem to not even have an idea what the coincidence counter is there for, and what sort of interference pattern we're looking for.

Anyways, that's not even relevant. If someone was to come in and fix your experiment, removing unnecessary beam splitters, turning the second set of splitters to face correctly, and hooks up detectors to coincidence counter, neither of four patterns will show interference. Because Dbc1 and Dbc2 tell you that photon passed through slit B, while Dac1 and Dac2 tell you that it passed through slit A. This is equivalent to having detector in the slit, which produces no interference. In fact, these are equivalent to detectors D4 and D3 on the original diagram. And hey, look at that, no interference on these.

Again, actually understanding the experiments, instead of just quoting text you don't understand, is very important in understanding why standard model is there, and why your nonsense is nonsense.

[mpc755]

In the experiment I propose the two interference patterns at D0 will still be discerned.

Try reading what was posted:

Interference patterns do not even need to be created at the other detectors in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0.

[PB666]

You do understand that what you're doing is telling a fairy tail, right? It's religion, not science. At best.

You cannot simply say, "it looses cohesion". What is it about the interaction that does that? Describe the actual interaction between particle and wave, and how interaction with detector causes that loss of "cohesion". I'm not seriously expecting you to be able to. I know you can't. I need you to understand that you can't. And that it's not how any sort of a scientific model works. It's how Sunday Church works.

But even without getting into all of that, and even if we pretend that your explanation makes sense, we look at more experiments and it quickly collapses. If the particle looses "cohesion" with the wave, how in the world does delayed choice quantum eraser work? Particle tracks back, finds its lost wave, and gains "cohesion" again? You might as well drop all pretense and call it magic for all the ad-hoc nonsense you've been dropping.

The discussion is kind of moving away from the foundational problem. Two sides classics and quantum physics, it actually one side but the old school could not accept non-determinism.

The basic problem is that at very small scales the realism of locality, so called local realism is not confined by space or time apparently. Our wonderful classical physicist either publically or privately promoted the concept of a hidden reality.

This was eventually molded to a form https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory that was tested by Bell. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Since that time almost all of experimental evidence has supported The quantum purist

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Other_types_of_experiments

The caveot is that when you go about assaying a decidedly non-deterministic system rather poweful statistics are require because the are inherant variances and systemic variation. With QM these attempt to cipher 'reality' invariably create loopholes, the next guy dealing with and creating his own.

I put my money on QM.

BTW, OP cant really compare a viscous oil drop on a slide to truely simulate a quantum system, it lacks degrees of freedom that a true independent quantum system might have.

The proof of QM is in its non deterministic core model, that is prove local quantum determinism false. Simple as that. Fix that argument and the various challenges by deBroglie and Einstein fall on their own.

I should add replace aether with the feild that carries local realism, and then simply disprove it. lol.

Edited October 17, 2015 by PB666

[K^2]

In the experiment I propose the two interference patterns at D0 will still be discerned.

Try reading what was posted:

Interference patterns do not even need to be created at the other detectors in order to determine the interference patterns created at D0.

Nobody's looking at interference patterns at D1-4. They are yes/no detectors. Interference pattern is taken from D0 via coincidence counter. In your setup, the result at D0 will be identical to D3 and D4 coincidences in original experiment, regardless of how you want to hook it up. You can see the results of your experiment by looking at images for D3 and D4 that I've posted. Do you see interference pattern? This is the actual experiment actually carried out, and your prediction is already wrong.

The proof of QM is in its non deterministic core model

I don't know why you think QM is non-deterministic. It just happens to be the kind of system you cannot simulate in a subsystem. So it appears non-deterministic to us, because we are part of the system. If you consider any closed system, however, of which observer is not a part of, QM is 100% deterministic. Also 100% boring, like most systems with no observers.

Edited October 17, 2015 by K^2

[mpc755]

The patterns at D0 will be the following.

[K^2]

The first one or the second one? And have you figured out yet how to place beam splitters, and how to use the coincidence counter?

[mpc755]

Both will be discerned at D0.

If you compare the photons detected at Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at Dac2 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern.

The image for the experiment I propose shows the idler interacting with two beam splitters. It is the interaction with the second beam splitter which allows the two interference patterns being created at D0 to be discerned.

Read the original experiment post.

[K^2]

Oh, that's even better. D0 and Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) will NEVER produce any results. You'll be staring at a blank screen. If Dac1 or Dac2 fire, neither Dbc1 nor Dbc2 will ever fire. And vice versa. In fact, in your setup, only one of four detectors will fire per photon. Same for D1-4 in the original experiment.

But if you don't believe me, just write a simulation. You know how to do that, right?

[mpc755]

Cumulative photons which arrive at Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) will correspond to an interference pattern at D0.

One of 4 detectors will fire per iteration of the experiment. It's the culmination of the iterations when combined together which will correspond to the interference patterns created at D0.

Edited October 17, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

You can't measure Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2). If either Dbc1 or Dbc2 detector triggers, Dac1 will not. If you get signal from Dac1, no signal from either Dbc1 or Dbc2. These detectors are purely yes/no. That's all they measure. And there is just one photon for these four detectors to measure, so only one detector at a time will trip.

There are exactly 4 possible outcomes for any one photon.

1) Position on D0 and Dac1 is on, Dac2, Dbc1, Dbc2 are off.

1) Position on D0 and Dac2 is on, Dac1, Dbc1, Dbc2 are off.

1) Position on D0 and Dbc1 is on, Dbc2, Dac1, Dac2 are off.

1) Position on D0 and Dbc2 is on, Dbc1, Dac1, Dac2 are off.

That's it. No other combinations are possible.

[mpc755]

Iteration 1:

Dbc1 fires and D0 fires.

Iteration 2:

Dac2 fires and D0 fires.

Iteration 3:

Dac1 fires and D0 fires.

And so and so on.

Now take the cumulative detections at Dac1, Dac2, Dbc1 and Dbc2 and their corresponding detections at D0 and if you take all of the possible combinations of Dac1, Dac2, Dbc1 and Dbc2 and compare that with the corresponding detections at D0 there will be two interference patterns at D0.

Edited October 17, 2015 by mpc755

[K^2]

Not even close. Take all cases of D0 and Dac1. That's just a random set of points. Take any other pair, it's also just a random set of points. There is no operation you can perform on two uncorrelated random sets to get anything other than a random set.

Again, this is trivial to show with a simulation.

[mpc755]

They're not random. They appear to be random but they are not. It's the interaction with the second beam splitter which causes certain idler photons to be detected at certain detectors.

When you combine like photons from Dac[n] with like photons from Dbc[n] you get an interference pattern at D0.

[K^2]

That's wrong. But show me math that proves your case. Or better yet, simulation. Oh, and to prove that your simulation works, I do need it to be capable of reproducing DCQE results.

[mpc755]

It's correct. Perform the actual experiment or get me in touch with people who can execute it.

The test would be to start with an actual so-called DCQE and turn it into a de Broglie was correct experiment.

Edited October 17, 2015 by mpc755

[PB666]

Nobody's looking at interference patterns at D1-4. They are yes/no detectors. Interference pattern is taken from D0 via coincidence counter. In your setup, the result at D0 will be identical to D3 and D4 coincidences in original experiment, regardless of how you want to hook it up. You can see the results of your experiment by looking at images for D3 and D4 that I've posted. Do you see interference pattern? This is the actual experiment actually carried out, and your prediction is already wrong.

I don't know why you think QM is non-deterministic. It just happens to be the kind of system you cannot simulate in a subsystem. So it appears non-deterministic to us, because we are part of the system. If you consider any closed system, however, of which observer is not a part of, QM is 100% deterministic. Also 100% boring, like most systems with no observers.

Yes, in a system where the units have meaning to us, not while the unit of time is -43sec. Aside from that I think the hidden variables argument is based on a belief that statitstics alone will not suffice, and yet it does suffice, its called the laws of mass action. Since we cannot resolve quantum time then quantum motion or position will be equally unresolvable.

I have to say this, the whole argument disappears if we just replace aether, wave and particle with feild, and simply state waves and particles are behaviors of the feild. The observers paradox is that when we detect we set a fixed criteria, such as a PMT it only accepts energy of a level, consequently a particle is detected. The observation forces what we detect, it is how the feild behaves during detection, and the slit behavior is how it behaves during transmission. Its just like saying my daughter is going to be married, chances are the husband will be a male. If we could not detect light, it would not also act as a particle, what would it be? nothing, a null. I don't have to understand every nuance of the feild to accept that it has differing bevahiors, just as if i can create a class on a computer that behaves like array or an object..... i can create nuances so can nature and so lets give QM its due and move on.

Edited October 17, 2015 by PB666

[K^2]

It's correct. Perform the actual experiment or get me in touch with people who can execute it.

So you admit that you don't know how to do the math involved, and you are talking out of your behind, right?

Experiment is very simple, though. I might just run it next time I'm at my alma mater.

Edited October 17, 2015 by K^2

[mpc755]

When you perform the actual experiment, not a simulation, and the results are as I predict title the paper, 'A de Broglie was correct experiment'.

[K^2]

Fair enough. So long as you promise not to bring up this nonsense again until then, or until you can actually demonstrate any sort of an ability to contribute to discussion.

[J.Random]

I can't contribute to this discussion (except that I think that mentioning "aether" in 21st century is a bit weird), but please do go on, guys. The discussion is very entertaining, in its own way. Kinda like watching a boxing match between Tyson and chihuahua.

[Vanamonde]

It's obvious that people are deeply interested in this discussion, but it's also evident that tempers are building again, and it's getting personal once more. We'd rather not close the thread, but if it gets to the point where we have to choose between that and giving out infractions, the thread will be closed.

[PB666]

I can't contribute to this discussion (except that I think that mentioning "aether" in 21st century is a bit weird), but please do go on, guys. The discussion is very entertaining, in its own way. Kinda like watching a boxing match between Tyson and chihuahua.

Aether is a neologism, sort of. Its something that encapsulates the hidden variables, at least in his logic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

aether is little more than a nominative case of the verb to undulate-Lord Salisbury

IOW aether is the cause of that which would otherwise behave like a particle in motion to behave like a wave. This idea does not consider all the qualties of the EM feild intrinsic to light, a thus attributes some of the properties to be imparted by the vacuum.

Edited October 17, 2015 by PB666