The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified

231 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 10:58:54 AMSep 13
to
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper. It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:

"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."

The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?

Ed

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:13:43 AMSep 13
to
Op 13-sep.-2021 om 16:58 schreef Ed Lake:
> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.

So we're in for another Ed Lake bashing thread.
"It's a way of life. You'll love it!" - F.Z.

Dirk Vdm

Dono.

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 11:20:45 AMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:58:54 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another crank paper.

Yep

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 2:01:25 PMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:58:54 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> 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 some photons follow slightly different paths from the others, 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 described in detail in the previous message), 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 cannot 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" particles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain 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. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't 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's the classical image, which can'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. 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 is why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.

> What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> photons get POLARIZED.

Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.

Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open.

This applies not just to photons, but also to any massive particles (e.g., electrons) as well, since all particles exhibit wave-like behavior with interference.

> Working on the paper seems a much more productive way to find
> answers to questions...

But you've already been provided with the answers to all your questions - and more. If there was something in those answers that you think is wrong or unclear, you could ask follow-up questions. That's the most productive approach. You're not going to re-discover quantum electrodynamics on your own - apparently not even after having read fairly detailed descriptions of it.

> How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
> when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?

It can't. Also, the mystery is not hundreds of years, it's less than 100. When Young first performed his experiment it wasn't mysterious, it simply led to the recognition of the wavelike behavior of light, which is perfectly classical, and hence refuted the Newton/Lake classical particle idea for light. The modern mystery arose only in the 20th century when the photo-electric effect and other phenomena eventually led to the modern concept of the photon (completely unlike your toy concept), which requires the "sum-over-paths" approach (or something equivalent), which is non-classical.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 3:43:47 PMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:01:25 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:58:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > 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 some photons follow slightly different paths from the others, 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 described in detail in the previous message), 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 cannot 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" particles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain 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. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't 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's the classical image, which can'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. 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 is why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.

What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?

>
> > What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> > photons get POLARIZED.
>
> Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.

Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.

>
> Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open.

Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.
When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
some effect on the atoms that form the slit.

What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
properties of a photon. And what happens to all the photons that do
NOT make it through the slits? Do they have any effect on the ones that
DO make it through the slits?

I don't have all the answers, but it is UNDENIABLE that light consists of
oscillating photons, NOT waves similar to sound waves.

Ed

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 4:48:00 PMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?

They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The same is true with any point of the barrier wall.

> > > What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> > > photons get POLARIZED.
> >
> > Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
>
> Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.

That's a non-sequitur because, as noted, polarization does not account for the interference pattern. That was the whole point of my comment, applicable to all kinds of particles. Also, please note that the spin states of spin-1/2 fermions (like electrons) are well understood, and they are distinct from the polarization modes of spin-1 bosons (like photons) or spin-2 bosons (like hypothetical gravitons), so this is not a matter of speculation.

> > Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on
> > the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot
> > be hit when both slits are open.
>
> Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.

No, the answer is the sum-over-paths of quantum electrodynamics, and there is no such thing as oscillating photons, for the reasons already explained to you several times. And, again, the concept of "oscillating photons" does not provide any account of the interference pattern.

> There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.

No one says it does, so your statement is pointless (unless you define "similar" broadly enough). Again, the explanation is that the probability of a photon landing at a certain time and place is equal to the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for each of the available paths from the source to that time and place. This results in the wave-like interference, even though the photons also exhibit particle-like attributes as well.

> When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
> some effect on the atoms that form the slit.

You're not addressing the issue at all. Again: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open. This behavior is irreconcilable with your beliefs, but it is accurately explained by quantum electrodynamics. When you say it is "probably" due to polarization, you might just as well say it is probably due to blamange. It is equally senseless and devoid of rational content.

> What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
> properties of a photon.

The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.

> And what happens to all the photons that do NOT make it through the slits?

They get absorbed by whatever they hit.

> Do they have any effect on the ones that DO make it through the slits?

No, and remember, we can send individual photons, one per year, through the device, so there is no interaction between different photons. The inference effect is due to the sum of the amplitudes for all available paths between source and screen, in a precise what that allows us to predict the exact distribution of landing points on the screen, for any given configuration of slits. You do not need to be speculating aimlessly about this. It is all well understood, and in perfect agreement with all experimental results.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 4:54:00 PMSep 13
to
On 9/13/21 2:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?

This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.

In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!

There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
contribute to the pattern on the screen.

In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
calculation for each point on the screen.

In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.

[#] I am speaking loosely and have omitted details for
clarity of presentation.

> Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating
> photons.

No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.

You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
write about it. Due to your colossal ignorance, essentially everything
you write is pure nonsense.

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 5:08:31 PMSep 13
to
Considering the constant speed - when these 2 paths have
different length - there must be 2 destruction events.

Volney

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 7:41:37 PMSep 13
to
On 9/13/2021 4:53 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths

Complex? I can see an amplitude of 0.5 meaning half power and 0.0
meaning no amplitude, but what would an amplitude of 0.5i mean? An
amplitude of 0.2-0.3i means what?

Sylvia Else

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 8:53:40 PMSep 13
to
On 14-Sep-21 12:58 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper. It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:
>
> "Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”

Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.

Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.

Sylvia.

Paul Alsing

unread,
Sep 13, 2021, 10:44:30 PMSep 13
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> I don't have all the answers...

Ed, you can sure say THAT again... but I must remind you that in reality, you don't have ANY of the answers...

> but it is UNDENIABLE that light consists of oscillating photons, NOT waves similar to sound waves.

Sorry, Ed, but there is no evidence that photons oscillate (move up-and-down or side-to-side) at all, once again you are just making this up as you go along...

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 10:14:02 AMSep 14
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:48:00 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
> They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The same is true with any point of the barrier wall.

If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials? If it gets absorbed but doesn't get
re-emitted, then its energy must somehow change the atom that absorbed it.

> > > > What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
> > > > photons get POLARIZED.
> > >
> > > Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
> >
> > Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.
> That's a non-sequitur because, as noted, polarization does not account for the interference pattern. That was the whole point of my comment, applicable to all kinds of particles. Also, please note that the spin states of spin-1/2 fermions (like electrons) are well understood, and they are distinct from the polarization modes of spin-1 bosons (like photons) or spin-2 bosons (like hypothetical gravitons), so this is not a matter of speculation.

The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
through the other slit.

> > > Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on
> > > the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot
> > > be hit when both slits are open.
> >
> > Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
> No, the answer is the sum-over-paths of quantum electrodynamics, and there is no such thing as oscillating photons, for the reasons already explained to you several times. And, again, the concept of "oscillating photons" does not provide any account of the interference pattern.

But the interference pattern can be TURNED OFF by polarizing the photons
so that the ones going through one slit are polarized at right angles to the
photons going through the other slit.

> > There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.
> No one says it does, so your statement is pointless (unless you define "similar" broadly enough). Again, the explanation is that the probability of a photon landing at a certain time and place is equal to the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for each of the available paths from the source to that time and place. This results in the wave-like interference, even though the photons also exhibit particle-like attributes as well.

Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
sound waves. That is what Young claimed.

> > When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
> > some effect on the atoms that form the slit.
> You're not addressing the issue at all. Again: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open. This behavior is irreconcilable with your beliefs, but it is accurately explained by quantum electrodynamics. When you say it is "probably" due to polarization, you might just as well say it is probably due to blamange. It is equally senseless and devoid of rational content.
> > What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
> > properties of a photon.
> The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.

They just make no sense to YOU.

> > And what happens to all the photons that do NOT make it through the slits?
> They get absorbed by whatever they hit.
> > Do they have any effect on the ones that DO make it through the slits?
> No, and remember, we can send individual photons, one per year, through the device, so there is no interaction between different photons. The inference effect is due to the sum of the amplitudes for all available paths between source and screen, in a precise what that allows us to predict the exact distribution of landing points on the screen, for any given configuration of slits. You do not need to be speculating aimlessly about this. It is all well understood, and in perfect agreement with all experimental results.

Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.
I probably should have titled it "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" instead
of "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified." Demystifying the experiment
means it must be EXPLAINED LOGICALLY, not just mathematically. And that
means we need to know what happens to EACH photon as it goes into the
experiment. Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
there are still things that are a mystery.

If I can figure out how to delete the paper, I may do that.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 10:26:12 AMSep 14
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/13/21 2:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
> This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
> fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
> word actually means.

The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."

If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate. If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?

>
> In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
> this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
> modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
> reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
> BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!

But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction. Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?

>
> There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
> are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
> contribute to the pattern on the screen.

IF they "terminate there", what happens to the photon's energy?

>
> In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
> event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
> by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
> source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
> many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
> source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
> experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
> calculation for each point on the screen.
>
> In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
> the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
> closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.
>
> [#] I am speaking loosely and have omitted details for
> clarity of presentation.
> > Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating
> > photons.
> No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
> photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
> Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.

Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 10:40:20 AMSep 14
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14-Sep-21 12:58 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> > In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper. It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:
> >
> > "Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
> Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
> it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
> that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.

Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics

>
> Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
> slit.
>
> Sylvia.

Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY. The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.

Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct. And then you
should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 10:52:31 AMSep 14
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:44:30 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I don't have all the answers...
>
> Ed, you can sure say THAT again... but I must remind you that in reality, you don't have ANY of the answers...
> > but it is UNDENIABLE that light consists of oscillating photons, NOT waves similar to sound waves.
> Sorry, Ed, but there is no evidence that photons oscillate (move up-and-down or side-to-side) at all, once again you are just making this up as you go along...

The FACT that photons have a FREQUENCY and a WAVELENGTH says
that they OSCILLATE. Experiments show that light consists of individual
particles. Physicist Richard Feynman once said and wrote,

“We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive
instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer,
the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is
something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon—and if the
light is all one color, all the ‘raindrops’ are the same size.”

Professor Feynman then added:
“I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important
to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have
gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving
like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.

“You might say that it’s just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but
no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak
light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles.”

Ed

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:07:30 AMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
> the case with most materials?

It may or may not be re-emitted, depending on what is blocking the slit (e.g., a detector that absorbs the energy and makes a click, or a mirror that reflects the energy, etc.), but the point is that whatever is blocking the slit is blocking the slit, the light does not proceed to hit the screen. When one slit is blocked, there is no interference pattern.

> The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
> polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
> fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
> through the other slit.

Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern. What you were trying to claim is that polarization of an individual photon causes interference, which is wrong. Remember, a single photon is going through the device per year, so there is no interaction between different photons. Polarizing the photon does not produce any interference. It's very important not to be confused by this. Putting a polarized filter over a slit and using light that is polarized so it can't go through that slit is just the same as blocking that slit.

> Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
> sound waves. That is what Young claimed.

To be accurate, the results of the double-slit experiment show that light and massive particles too (e.g., electrons) exhibit wavelike behavior, which Young (and everyone else at the time) assumed meant that light was a classical wave, since it proves that it can't be a classical oscillating particle with a definite trajectory such as you (Ed) imagine. Young did not know that the same effect occurs even with massive particles (like electrons). What was discovered much later is that light can't be a classical wave either, so it can't be a classical anything, it has to be a quantum phenomenon, which is described by the wave function to determine the probabilities for a photon or electron to land at a given place.

> > The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
>
> They just make no sense to YOU.

The word "just" should be deleted, because it isn't "just" me that thinks your beliefs make no sense. In fact, in the very next sentence (below) you agree that your paper doesn't really even address the issue at all, and you're going to try to retract your paper (which is good).

> Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
> a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.

Right, and that is not just a little detail, that is the entire point, i.e., that's what makes the two-slit experiment results impossible to explain with classical oscillating particles of the kind you claim. That's why your beliefs are not logical, because they don't even address the issue at hand.

> Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
> photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
> there are still things that are a mystery.

To be precise, your beliefs are completely irreconcilable with the actual phenomena, which you haven't even really considered yet, so, in that sense, yes, the subject is still mysterious to you. Now, the phenomena are perfectly well described by quantum electrodynamics, so the subject is not mysterious to scientists in that sense, although there is still (as everyone knows) arguably some mystery about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, due to the non-classical aspects. Yes, there is still mystery in this subject, but you must be aware that the mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand the subject. The first step toward that understanding is recognizing that the phenomena are not consistent with your (tacitly classical) concept of photons as oscillating particles.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:18:32 AMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:07:30 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:14:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
> > the case with most materials?
> It may or may not be re-emitted, depending on what is blocking the slit (e.g., a detector that absorbs the energy and makes a click, or a mirror that reflects the energy, etc.), but the point is that whatever is blocking the slit is blocking the slit, the light does not proceed to hit the screen. When one slit is blocked, there is no interference pattern.
> > The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
> > polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
> > fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
> > through the other slit.
> Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.

NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
stripe pattern on the screen.

> What you were trying to claim is that polarization of an individual photon causes interference, which is wrong. Remember, a single photon is going through the device per year, so there is no interaction between different photons. Polarizing the photon does not produce any interference. It's very important not to be confused by this. Putting a polarized filter over a slit and using light that is polarized so it can't go through that slit is just the same as blocking that slit.
> > Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
> > sound waves. That is what Young claimed.
> To be accurate, the results of the double-slit experiment show that light and massive particles too (e.g., electrons) exhibit wavelike behavior, which Young (and everyone else at the time) assumed meant that light was a classical wave, since it proves that it can't be a classical oscillating particle with a definite trajectory such as you (Ed) imagine. Young did not know that the same effect occurs even with massive particles (like electrons). What was discovered much later is that light can't be a classical wave either, so it can't be a classical anything, it has to be a quantum phenomenon, which is described by the wave function to determine the probabilities for a photon or electron to land at a given place.
> > > The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
> >
> > They just make no sense to YOU.
> The word "just" should be deleted, because it isn't "just" me that thinks your beliefs make no sense. In fact, in the very next sentence (below) you agree that your paper doesn't really even address the issue at all, and you're going to try to retract your paper (which is good).
> > Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
> > a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.
> Right, and that is not just a little detail, that is the entire point, i.e., that's what makes the two-slit experiment results impossible to explain with classical oscillating particles of the kind you claim. That's why your beliefs are not logical, because they don't even address the issue at hand.
> > Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
> > photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
> > there are still things that are a mystery.
> To be precise, your beliefs are completely irreconcilable with the actual phenomena, which you haven't even really considered yet, so, in that sense, yes, the subject is still mysterious to you. Now, the phenomena are perfectly well described by quantum electrodynamics, so the subject is not mysterious to scientists in that sense, although there is still (as everyone knows) arguably some mystery about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, due to the non-classical aspects. Yes, there is still mystery in this subject, but you must be aware that the mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand the subject. The first step toward that understanding is recognizing that the phenomena are not consistent with your (tacitly classical) concept of photons as oscillating particles.

“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

There are only people who BELIEVE they understand it because
they understand the math.

Ed

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:18:41 AMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:52:31 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> “I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important
> to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have
> gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving
> like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.

But Ed, every time you post that quote, someone responds by posting the follow-up quote from the very same book in which Feynman says that, actually, light is neither a wave nor a particle, it has attributes of both, so we should probably call it a wavicle, but for convenience, he calls it a particle, with the understanding that it is not a classical particle. You (Ed) believe that light consists of little classical particles, so you are not agreeing with Feynman or QED. Each time you are given the follow-up quote, that demolishes your beliefs, you just ignore it.

> Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a "wavelength"
> if they do not oscillate.

Again, this was explained to you in the previous thread. You simply ignored the explanation. You can't understand the explanation until you realize that photons are not classical particles with definite trajectories, as explained previously. If you don't understand the explanation, don't just ignore it, tell me what part of the explanation you disagree with or don't understand. Here it is again:

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

Each photon of red light has less energy than those of blue light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't 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 source.

Ken Seto

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:19:07 AMSep 14
to
New interpretations of the result of the double slit experiment is on page 77 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:32:07 AMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.
>
> NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
> slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
> of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
> stripe pattern on the screen.

No, what they did is exactly consistent with what I said, i.e., by placing filters with a certain orientation in front of the slits, photons with the contrary polarization angle are blocked for that slit, so each photon (with its specific polarization) has only one "open" slit available, and hence no interference. That's exactly what I told you, and, again, this refutes your beliefs.

> “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed
> the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.

Again, that's exactly what I told you, Ed. I carefully explained, first, that your ideas are completely bonkers because they don't address the actual facts, and, second, I pointed out that quantum electrodynamics very precisely predicts all the known facts, so the subject is not mysterious in that sense, and then, third, I noted that the interpretation of quantum mechanics - for people who understand quantum mechanics (which does not include you) - there is indeed an element of mystery. As I said, this mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand quantum mechanics.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:50:07 AMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:18:41 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 7:52:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > “I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important
> > to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have
> > gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving
> > like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.
> But Ed, every time you post that quote, someone responds by posting the follow-up quote from the very same book in which Feynman says that, actually, light is neither a wave nor a particle, it has attributes of both, so we should probably call it a wavicle, but for convenience, he calls it a particle, with the understanding that it is not a classical particle. You (Ed) believe that light consists of little classical particles, so you are not agreeing with Feynman or QED. Each time you are given the follow-up quote, that demolishes your beliefs, you just ignore it.

NO!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE LIGHT CONSISTS OF CLASSICAL PARTICLES!
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle. So, I agree with Feynman in that light behaves
like particles in that they hit one tiny dot at a time on a photomultiplier.
Waves spread out and hit the entire wall. Your BELIEF is that one wave
interferes with another to cause the stripes on the wall.

> > Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a "wavelength"
> > if they do not oscillate.
> Again, this was explained to you in the previous thread. You simply ignored the explanation. You can't understand the explanation until you realize that photons are not classical particles with definite trajectories, as explained previously. If you don't understand the explanation, don't just ignore it, tell me what part of the explanation you disagree with or don't understand. Here it is again:
> > If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light and blue light?
> Each photon of red light has less energy than those of blue light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't 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 source.

That's just gibberish to me. Each photon of red light has less energy than
a blue light photon because blue photons have electric and magnetic fields
which oscillate faster than the fields in a red light photon. There are no
multiple paths for a photon. It cannot make decisions. It travels a single
path until it hits an atom, and then it transfers its energy to that atom.
A photon CAN interfere with the trajectory of another photon if they are
polarized and the magnetic field of one photon bumps into the magnetic
field of another photon (the same with electric fields). The fields repel
each other, but that can only happen if the two photons are traveling in
the same general direction side by side.

Ed

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 11:55:28 AMSep 14
to
On 9/14/21 9:52 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> The FACT that photons have a FREQUENCY and a WAVELENGTH says that
> they OSCILLATE.

That is your fantasy, not any fact.

Photons do not "have" either frequency or wavelength, because it simply
is not possible to measure either the frequency or wavelength of a
single photon [#]. This is quantum mechanics, and the only things that
can be sensibly discussed are MEASUREMENTS.

[#] For the simple reason that a photon has a single
detection/destruction event. Measuring frequency requires
multiple measurements over time, and measuring wavelength
requires multiple measurements over space; neither is
possible for a single photon.

Collections of photons, with appropriate coherence properties to form a
(monochromatic) light beam, can have their frequency and wavelength
measured, because the coherence makes the individual photon amplitudes
behave that way. But individual photons simply do not "have" those
properties.

[Yes, this is weird. Yes, this is not acting like
"little bullets" would act. QM is WEIRD.]

With a suitable detector one can measure the energy of a single photon.
But the single "click" in the detector has neither frequency nor wavelength.

The actual theory of photons is VERY MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than the
popular writings that you believe describe the underlying physics --
THEY DON'T. Your FANTASY is wrong. You REALLY need to learn something
about the subject before attempting to write about it, and popular
writings don't provide complete or correct information.

> The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum
> of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy
> proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."

That is not wrong, but it is greatly oversimplified; moreover, it
attempts to define one word in terms of another undefined word -- what
does "quantum" actually mean??? You can search dictionaries until you
are blue in the face without learning anything useful, because
dictionaries cannot capture the essence: in QED a photon is a specific
type of term in the perturbation expansion of an amplitude; the fact
that it is accompanied by an integral means your simple-minded notions
are just plain wrong.

You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting
to write about it.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:01:37 PMSep 14
to
Yes, the amplitudes in QM are complex numbers. But remember this is
Quantum Mechanics, and one can only have sensible discussions about what
one MEASURES. One cannot measure such amplitudes, only the corresponding
probabilities (with are related to the amplitude's norm squared, which
is necessarily a real number).

So there is no sensible answer to your question.

Tom Roberts

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:05:46 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:32:07 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.
> >
> > NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
> > slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
> > of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
> > stripe pattern on the screen.
> No, what they did is exactly consistent with what I said, i.e., by placing filters with a certain orientation in front of the slits, photons with the contrary polarization angle are blocked for that slit, so each photon (with its specific polarization) has only one "open" slit available, and hence no interference. That's exactly what I told you, and, again, this refutes your beliefs.

Okay, so we AGREE that light that is polarized in two different
ways will NOT show an "interference pattern." So POLARITY
has an effect on the experiment. My understanding is confirmed.

> > “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed
> > the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.
> Again, that's exactly what I told you, Ed. I carefully explained, first, that your ideas are completely bonkers because they don't address the actual facts, and, second, I pointed out that quantum electrodynamics very precisely predicts all the known facts, so the subject is not mysterious in that sense, and then, third, I noted that the interpretation of quantum mechanics - for people who understand quantum mechanics (which does not include you) - there is indeed an element of mystery. As I said, this mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand quantum mechanics.

Okay, you claim to understand quantum mechanics, and Richard Feynman
said that "NOBODY really understands quantum mechanics."

I tend to agree with Feynman, which means that you merely BELIEVE
that you understand quantum mechanics.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:12:20 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:55:28 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/14/21 9:52 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > The FACT that photons have a FREQUENCY and a WAVELENGTH says that
> > they OSCILLATE.
> That is your fantasy, not any fact.
>
> Photons do not "have" either frequency or wavelength, because it simply
> is not possible to measure either the frequency or wavelength of a
> single photon [#]. This is quantum mechanics, and the only things that
> can be sensibly discussed are MEASUREMENTS.
>
> [#] For the simple reason that a photon has a single
> detection/destruction event. Measuring frequency requires
> multiple measurements over time, and measuring wavelength
> requires multiple measurements over space; neither is
> possible for a single photon.
>
> Collections of photons, with appropriate coherence properties to form a
> (monochromatic) light beam, can have their frequency and wavelength
> measured, because the coherence makes the individual photon amplitudes
> behave that way. But individual photons simply do not "have" those
> properties.
>
> [Yes, this is weird. Yes, this is not acting like
> "little bullets" would act. QM is WEIRD.]
>
> With a suitable detector one can measure the energy of a single photon.
> But the single "click" in the detector has neither frequency nor wavelength.

It is NOT just "a single click in the detector." As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT
OF ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.

Ed

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:31:24 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 8:50:07 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> NO!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE LIGHT CONSISTS OF CLASSICAL PARTICLES!
> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
> on some kind of tiny particle.

First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields. That would be like saying electrons are made of gold. Second, the term "classical particle" means an entity with a definite trajectory, i.e., it follows a single definite path from one place to another. This is what you have in your mind when you think about your "oscillating photons". But classical entities cannot account for quantum phenomena, as I've been patiently explaining to you.

> Your BELIEF is that one wave interferes with another to cause the stripes on the wall.

No, I agree with Feynman and quantum electrodynamics that the interference pattern is due to the sum-over-paths for the available paths that a photon could take from source to reception event. The probability for a single photon to land at a particular time and place is the magnitude of the sum of the complex amplitudes for each available path. This describes neither a classical wave nor a classical particle... as Feynman explained.

> > > If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light and blue light?
> > Each photon of red light has less energy than those of blue light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't 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 source.
>
> That's just gibberish to me.

I know it is... that's the problem. You are asking questions whose answers you are nowhere near qualified to understand. You need to keep studying and learning and thinking until the explanation is no longer incomprehensible to you. One of the biggest obstacles to your learning is that you stubbornly cling to nonsense like this:

> photons have electric and magnetic fields which oscillate...

No, photons have no charge, and hence they have no electric or magnetic fields. As explained above, electromagnetic fields are comprised of the actions of photons, so it is illogical nonsense to imagine that photons are comprised of electromagnetic fields. It's like a child saying that electrons are made of gold.

> A photon CAN interfere with the trajectory of another photon...

Again, the photons are fired once per year, and we still get the interference distribution. At no time is there more than one photon in flight, so your ideas about photons interfering with each other are wrong. We covered that before.

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:44:07 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:05:46 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Okay, so we AGREE that light that is polarized in two different
> ways will NOT show an "interference pattern." So POLARITY
> has an effect on the experiment. My understanding is confirmed.

No, your understanding is utterly refuted. Again, your claim was that you can account for the striped pattern even for individual photons (fired one per year) by an effect of polarization, and I've explained to you that your claim is illogical nonsense. All the filters are doing in the referenced discussion is blocking off slits for various photons. We can block the slits in any way we like, and in every circumstance the distribution of landing sites agrees with the explanation I've given, i.e., sum-of-paths for the available paths, and this conclusively debunks your beliefs.

> Okay, you claim to understand quantum mechanics, and Richard Feynman
> said that "NOBODY really understands quantum mechanics."

You misread. Again, what we've shown is that, first, your ideas are completely bonkers because they don't address the actual facts (interference for individual photons), and, second, that quantum electrodynamics very precisely predicts all the known facts, so the subject is well understood in that sense (which is why Feynman won the Nobel prize, not for failing to understand the subject), and third, that the interpretation of quantum mechanics - for people who understand quantum mechanics (which does not include you) - there is indeed an element of mystery.

As I said, this mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand quantum mechanics. It is this interpretational aspect that leads to ideas like the Copenhagen interpretation, and the many worlds interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics, and ontological collapse interpretations, quantum logic interpretations, and so on. There is a vast literature on the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and this is what Feynman was alluding to when he said "nobody really understands quantum mechanics", meaning it is not classical. But you (Ed) are still at the stage of thinking quantum mechanics can be explained in classical terms, so you aren't even up to the level where you can perceive the mystery that Feynman was referring to.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:45:49 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, but a quick look indicates it won't be of any help to me at all.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 12:54:38 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 8:50:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > NO!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE LIGHT CONSISTS OF CLASSICAL PARTICLES!
> > I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
> > on some kind of tiny particle.
> First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.

You make no sense. It seems to be just memorized phrases.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"???
What does that mean?

Photons are the transfer of energy from one atom to another.
That energy is in the form of oscillating electromagnetic fields.

Ed

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 2:21:14 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> > > I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
> > > on some kind of tiny particle.
> >
> > First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
>
>> "the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?

It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles. If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.

The last time I explained this to you (two weeks ago), you complained that it was too difficult for you to understand. I answered that quantum electrodynamics is not entirely simple, and although I'm trying to focus on aspects that can be explained in simple terms, you keep adding complications by asking about things like how electromagnetic interactions are mediated by photons, which necessarily involves virtual photons, which is obviously not something that you are equipped to understand. We got off on this tangent only because you expressed the mistaken belief that photons are made of electromagnetic fields, and I corrected you by pointing out that, to the contrary, electromagnetic fields are made of photons (crudely speaking). If you really wanted to understand this in depth, you would need to actually learn quantum electrodynamics (which you obviously have no intention of doing). It is not simple, but fortunately you don't need to understand that to understand the simple things you are talking about.

> Photons are the transfer of energy from one atom to another.

Well, they convey force and/or energy, and more generally, they convey it from one charged particle to another... it doesn't have to be atoms. Individual electrons interact with each other electromagnetically, meaning they exchange photons.

> That energy is in the form of oscillating electromagnetic fields.

Again (same as two weeks ago), when you talk about electromagnetic fields you implicitly have in mind the aggregate classical description of electric and magnetic fields (neglecting the fact that they are mediated by photons), and you need to realize that even static electric fields exert force, so you can't confuse electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light) with electromagnetic forces. The two are related, but are not conceptually identical. To understand the difference, you would need to understand virtual photons, and so on, which you simply are not equipped to do. For purposes of this discussion, it suffices to say that photons comprising electromagnetic radiation are obviously not comprised of electromagnetic radiation. That would be like saying bricks are made of houses.... No, houses are made of bricks, not the other way around. Electromagnetic fields (in the classical aggregate) comprising light oscillate, but the photons comprising the electromagnetic fields do not oscillate.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 2:30:20 PMSep 14
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:58:54 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper. It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:
>
> "Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."
>
> The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
> All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake
>
> How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
> when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
>
> Ed

They did the 2 slit experiment without observers
and Observer Created Reality failed...
Einstein was right all along... and
Bohr's science was only a fiction.

Mitchell Raemsch

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 2:55:42 PMSep 14
to
Op 14-sep.-2021 om 18:45 schreef Ed Lake:
Nothing is of any help to you at all.
Not even Ken Seto's autistic nonsense.

Dirk Vdm

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 3:36:44 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> > > > I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
> > > > on some kind of tiny particle.
> > >
> > > First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
> >
> >> "the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
> It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.

You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.

> If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.

I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?

I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."

Ed

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 3:45:37 PMSep 14
to
Op 14-sep.-2021 om 21:36 schreef Ed Lake:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
>>>>> on some kind of tiny particle.
>>>>
>>>> First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
>>>
>>>> "the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
>> It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
>
> You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.

NOTHING *can* be explained to a telephone pole, Ed.


> Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
> You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
> dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.

No, there isn't.
And you know it.


>
>> If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.
>
> I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
> "cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
>
> I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
> vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
> with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.

Whether someday you'll be able to wipe your own bottom is also unknown.


> It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
> go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."

Don't lose any sleep over it.
Be back soon. There'll always be someone here who thinks they
can educate a telephone pole.

Dirk Vdm


Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 4:11:32 PMSep 14
to
On 9/14/21 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> [detection of a single photon] As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT OF
> ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
> That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.

Did you measure that "frequency"? -- No. So you cannot sensibly discuss
it. That "equivalence" is for MANY, MANY photons in a beam, not single ones.

[Note: there is only one "type" of photon -- indeed all
photons are identical. In my earlier post where I
mentioned "type" I meant photons in different
topological places in various Feynman diagrams. I guess
that was a poor choice of words, as you clearly
misunderstood (but you are very good at misunderstanding).]

I repeat: What you think you know about this is WRONG. You REALLY need
to learn about the subject before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 5:02:08 PMSep 14
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:48:00 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
>> They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
>> a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
>> same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
>
> If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
> the case with most materials?

It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
the original direction beyond the absorber.
Young had no idea about the difference between transverse waves and
longitudinal waves.
Ed, just because mathematics of any kind is a mystery to you does not mean
that it needs demystification.

> And that
> means we need to know what happens to EACH photon as it goes into the
> experiment. Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
> photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
> there are still things that are a mystery.
>
> If I can figure out how to delete the paper, I may do that.

That would be smart.

>
> Ed
>



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

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 5:10:07 PMSep 14
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/13/21 2:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
>> This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
>> fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
>> word actually means.
>
> The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
> or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
> to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
>
> If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.

That’s simply not true.

> If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
> how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
>
>>
>> In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
>> this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
>> modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
>> reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
>> BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
>
> But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
> of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
> closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
> in some random direction.

Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.

> Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.

Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.

> So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
> that hits the closed slit?

You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.

>
>>
>> There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
>> are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
>> contribute to the pattern on the screen.
>
> IF they "terminate there", what happens to the photon's energy?
>
>>
>> In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
>> event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
>> by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
>> source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
>> many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
>> source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
>> experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
>> calculation for each point on the screen.
>>
>> In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
>> the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
>> closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.
>>
>> [#] I am speaking loosely and have omitted details for
>> clarity of presentation.
>>> Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating
>>> photons.
>> No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
>> photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
>> Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
>
> Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
> "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.

That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 5:10:08 PMSep 14
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14-Sep-21 12:58 am, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
>>> It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:
>>>
>>> "Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle”
>>> or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is
>>> impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
>>> The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
>> Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
>> it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
>> that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
>
> Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
>
>>
>> Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
>> slit.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.

No, that’s completely false. Quantum physics has its own set of perfectly
sensible and logical physical concepts. It is not just a mathematical
artifice.

> The problem
> is explaining it LOGICALLY.
>
> Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
> correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
> WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.

Ed, stop. What you are saying is that physics needs to be a subject that
can explain things without using any mathematics at all, just pictures and
everyday language. But physics is not that. It is not a subject that a
layperson with no prep or prerequisite skills can comprehend, let alone
master. Neither is neurochemistry. Neither is aeronautical engineering.
Neither is international economics. Is wishes were fishes, you’d have an
aquarium.

> And then you
> should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 5:16:22 PMSep 14
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
>>>>> on some kind of tiny particle.
>>>>
>>>> First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is
>>>> mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist
>>>> of electromagnetic fields.
>>>
>>>> "the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
>> It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the
>> same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again,
>> the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by
>> virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy
>> and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
>
> You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
> Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

And Feynman said, “He’ll, if I could explain it simply, it wouldn’t be
worth a Nobel Prize.”

I know you WANT physics to be understandable by laypeople. But your wants
do not correspond to reality.

> You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
> dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.
>
>> If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when
>> they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and
>> exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This
>> is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball
>> is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you
>> understand what the word "mediate" means.
>
> I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
> "cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
>
> I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
> vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
> with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
> It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
> go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."

It will help if you learn first what a photon really is, rather than just
guessing at that.

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 5:19:40 PMSep 14
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:36:44 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.

> You just recite memorized dogma...

That insulting allegation is both false and pointless. I'm explaining to you, in quite simple terms, and with no mathematics at all, quantum electrodynamics. (You're welcome.) My explanations to you are neither dogma nor memorized. I agree with the two better (and genuine) quotes of Feynman, that were written on his blackboard at the time of his death: "What I cannot create I don't understand", and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved". You should contemplate both of those quotes.

> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
> on some kind of tiny particle.

Again, when describing light in terms of classical electromagnetism (e.g., oscillating electric and magnetic fields), you are not giving the lower-level quantum description in terms of photons. The classical fields are a conceptualization of the electromagnetic interaction that is actually, at the quantum level, mediated by photons. The classical electromagnetic field oscillates, but the underlying individual quanta (photons) that actually effectuate the fields do not oscillate. The phase of the source of a photon advances, and each photon carries the phase of the source at emission, and this phase does not advance between emission and absorption. If there is only one available path, the phase really doesn't matter, since all that matters is the magnitude, but if there are multiple paths of different path length the phases matter, because they can interfere.

When you talk about a tiny particle centered in the fields... well, that is pure nonsense, and you yourself have admitted that your belief cannot account for the interference pattern in the two-slit experiment, so it's unclear why you continue to espouse that thoroughly debunked belief.

> I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
> "cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?

No, I'd say the optimum word in English is mediate, especially considering the space-like virtual photon interactions that are bi-directional. Yes, this is standard terminology, but there's a reason it is standard - it most accurately conveys the meaning. It does not mean "bring about a result", and it does not mean "cause", it means mediate. If this simple English word is unfamiliar to you, then that may explain part of your difficulty. But after I have patiently described the meaning in even simpler English words, I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to complain about lacuna in your own vocabulary. Don't blame me, blame your grade school. And, again, this whole digression was solely for the purpose of debunking your belief that photons are made of electromagnetic waves, when in fact it is the other way around, i.e., electromagnetic waves are made of photons (very crudely speaking). A child could understand this.

Python

unread,
Sep 14, 2021, 6:42:14 PMSep 14
to
Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
>>>>> on some kind of tiny particle.
>>>>
>>>> First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
>>>
>>>> "the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
>> It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
>
> You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
> Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

Most alleged quotes from A.E. are fake. Anyway... Why would
Albert Einstein assumed that grandmothers are dumber than
Ed Lake?


Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 3:01:36 AMSep 15
to
On 9/14/2021 3:36 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>>> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
>>>>> on some kind of tiny particle.

You claimed not to believe the photon was a classical particle, however
that description of a vibrating tiny particle sure sounds like a
classical description to me!
>>>>
>>>> First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
>>>
>>>> "the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
>> It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
>
> You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
> Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

You just spouted a memorized slogan, which explains NOTHING.

> You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
> dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.

You are projecting. You just recited memorized dogma as part of your
complaint about reciting memorized dogma!
>
>> If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.
>
> I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
> "cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
>
> I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
> vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
> with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
> It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
> go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."

You are a laugh. You are just like Ken Seto and Archie Plutonium,
writing "books" on topics you don't even understand!

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 10:49:50 AMSep 15
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:11:32 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/14/21 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > [detection of a single photon] As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT OF
> > ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
> > That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.
> Did you measure that "frequency"? -- No. So you cannot sensibly discuss
> it. That "equivalence" is for MANY, MANY photons in a beam, not single ones.

Wow! You are TOTALLY removed from reality.

"It is not actually possible to directly measure the frequency of a single photon of light.
This is because a single photon is going to behave more like a particle than a wave,
and the concept of frequency (cycles or alternations per second) only applies to waves.

"A spectrometer is a device that disperses the path of impinging photons through an
angle that is dependent on their wavelength. In this way it is possible to closely
estimate the wavelength of the photons.

"The wavelength measurement is then used in a simple equation relating speed of a
wave, its wavelength and frequency: frequency = speed / wavelength.

"The speed of light is defined exactly as 299,792,458 m/s. A photon of red-orange light
from a HeNe laser has a wavelength of 632.8 nm. Using the equation gives a frequency
of 4.738X1014 Hz or about 474 trillion cycle per second."

Source: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae442.cfm

>
> [Note: there is only one "type" of photon -- indeed all
> photons are identical.

Wow! You are TOTALLY removed from reality.

"Low-energy photons, like radio photons, tend to behave more like waves,
while higher energy photons (i.e. X-rays) behave more like particles."

Source: https://www.univie.ac.at/geographie/fachdidaktik/FD/site/external_htmls/imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves4.html

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:00:42 AMSep 15
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:48:00 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
> >> They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
> >> a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
> >> same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
> >
> > If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
> > the case with most materials?
> It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
> the original direction beyond the absorber.

"Reflection" is not the right word. If the double slit device was made of
silver or aluminum, then the photon might "reflect" back through the
single slit. But almost any other kind of material will cause the NEW
photon to go in some random direction. My point is that the NEW photon
has to go somewhere. And it will hit another part of the double-slit device.
And then it will be absorbed and re-emitted again. That suggests that
the space between the first slit and the double slits has photons traveling
in all directions UNTIL they escape through one of the slits. And when
they escape, how to they affect the pattern on the screen?

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:08:32 AMSep 15
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 9/13/21 2:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
> >> This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
> >> fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
> >> word actually means.
> >
> > The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
> > or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
> > to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
> >
> > If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
> That’s simply not true.

WHY is it "not true"?

> > If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
> > how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
> >
> >>
> >> In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
> >> this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
> >> modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
> >> reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
> >> BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
> >
> > But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
> > of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
> > closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
> > in some random direction.
> Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.

But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something and get "reflected" AGAIN.
And again and again ..... until it escapes?

> > Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
> Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
> > So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
> > that hits the closed slit?
> You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
> jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
> or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
> where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.

But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
EVENTUALLY? And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
to go through the slits on the first try?

[snip]
> >> No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
> >> photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
> >> Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
> >
> > Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
> > "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
> That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.

Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:20:10 AMSep 15
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:10:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 14-Sep-21 12:58 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
> >>> It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:
> >>>
> >>> "Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle”
> >>> or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is
> >>> impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
> >>> The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
> >> Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
> >> it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
> >> that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
> >
> > Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
> >
> >>
> >> Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
> >> slit.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.
> No, that’s completely false. Quantum physics has its own set of perfectly
> sensible and logical physical concepts. It is not just a mathematical
> artifice.

Those "concepts" disregard reality so that the mathematics will work.
Everything must be a "quantum," which means you cannot have anything
that is "infinite" or "unknown."

> > The problem
> > is explaining it LOGICALLY.
> >
> > Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
> > correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
> > WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.
> Ed, stop. What you are saying is that physics needs to be a subject that
> can explain things without using any mathematics at all, just pictures and
> everyday language. But physics is not that. It is not a subject that a
> layperson with no prep or prerequisite skills can comprehend, let alone
> master. Neither is neurochemistry. Neither is aeronautical engineering.
> Neither is international economics. Is wishes were fishes, you’d have an
> aquarium.

I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
will understand what you are saying. If you can't do that, then you
do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
have memorized.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:29:52 AMSep 15
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:48:00 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
>>>> They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
>>>> a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
>>>> same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
>>>
>>> If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
>>> the case with most materials?
>> It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
>> the original direction beyond the absorber.
>
> "Reflection" is not the right word. If the double slit device was made of
> silver or aluminum, then the photon might "reflect" back through the
> single slit.

No. You see a green leaf because of light reflected off the leaf. Same for
a lump of charcoal. Do not confuse reflection with *specular* reflection
like off a mirrored or metallic surface.

> But almost any other kind of material will cause the NEW
> photon to go in some random direction. My point is that the NEW photon
> has to go somewhere. And it will hit another part of the double-slit device.
> And then it will be absorbed and re-emitted again. That suggests that
> the space between the first slit and the double slits has photons traveling
> in all directions UNTIL they escape through one of the slits. And when
> they escape, how to they affect the pattern on the screen?
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:29:52 AMSep 15
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/21 2:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
>>>> This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
>>>> fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
>>>> word actually means.
>>>
>>> The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
>>> or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
>>> to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
>>>
>>> If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
>> That’s simply not true.
>
> WHY is it "not true"?

Because there are other physics contexts to which “frequency” applies other
than a back-and-forth oscillation. This is an example of where physics
jargon has subtle meanings that are not easily parseable by laypeople,
which is no doubt frustrating to laypeople.

>
>>> If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
>>> how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
>>>> this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
>>>> modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
>>>> reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
>>>> BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
>>>
>>> But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
>>> of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
>>> closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
>>> in some random direction.
>> Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
>
> But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something

Or escapes.

> and get "reflected" AGAIN.
> And again and again ..... until it escapes?

Well, sure. Just like most sunlight escapes.

>
>>> Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
>> Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
>>> So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
>>> that hits the closed slit?
>> You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
>> jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
>> or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
>> where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
>
> But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
> EVENTUALLY?

Sure. No here is where quantitative calculation helps. You don’t know
without that whether it is one in a hundred or one in a hundred trillion.

> And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
> to go through the slits on the first try?

Virtually nothing. See the comment about the calculation just above.

>
> [snip]
>>>> No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
>>>> photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
>>>> Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
>>>
>>> Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
>>> "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
>> That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
>
> Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
> "frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.

No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:34:18 AMSep 15
to
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:19:40 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 12:36:44 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> > unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
> He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.

I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.”

"Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of
difficulty lies opportunity.”

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:36:18 AMSep 15
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:10:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 14-Sep-21 12:58 am, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
>>>>> It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle”
>>>>> or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is
>>>>> impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
>>>>> The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
>>>> Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
>>>> it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
>>>> that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
>>>
>>> Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
>>>> slit.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.
>> No, that’s completely false. Quantum physics has its own set of perfectly
>> sensible and logical physical concepts. It is not just a mathematical
>> artifice.
>
> Those "concepts" disregard reality so that the mathematics will work.

Nonsense. Where did you get that idea.

> Everything must be a "quantum," which means you cannot have anything
> that is "infinite" or "unknown."

Quantum mechanics has no problem with the infinite. Where did you get the
idea otherwise?

And I have no idea what you mean about quantum mechanics dealing with the
unknown.

>
>>> The problem
>>> is explaining it LOGICALLY.
>>>
>>> Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
>>> correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
>>> WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.
>> Ed, stop. What you are saying is that physics needs to be a subject that
>> can explain things without using any mathematics at all, just pictures and
>> everyday language. But physics is not that. It is not a subject that a
>> layperson with no prep or prerequisite skills can comprehend, let alone
>> master. Neither is neurochemistry. Neither is aeronautical engineering.
>> Neither is international economics. Is wishes were fishes, you’d have an
>> aquarium.
>
> I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
> in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
> will understand what you are saying.

No, I’m sorry, that’s a pipe dream. There are many subjects that are just
not reducible to concepts and language that are easily understandable to
laypeople. I listed a few, there are many many others. This does not mean
that the experts in all those fields don’t actually understand the
subjects. They certainly do. They just can’t make it all accessible to
non-experts.

> If you can't do that, then you
> do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
> have memorized.

That too is a false premise. People who are experts in an area do
understand it, and it is not just memorization. That doesn’t mean that it
can be explained to laypeople who have not invested in the time and energy
to learn it.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 11:38:29 AMSep 15
to
Quotes aren’t going to help your cause.

Expertise in a subject requires 10,000 hours of concentrated effort at the
hands of those better than you in the endeavor. This applies to everything
from chess to woodworking. There is no shortcut.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 12:03:08 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:36:18 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:10:08 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 14-Sep-21 12:58 am, Ed Lake wrote:

> > I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
> > in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
> > will understand what you are saying.
> No, I’m sorry, that’s a pipe dream. There are many subjects that are just
> not reducible to concepts and language that are easily understandable to
> laypeople. I listed a few, there are many many others. This does not mean
> that the experts in all those fields don’t actually understand the
> subjects. They certainly do. They just can’t make it all accessible to
> non-experts.

No one said anything about making it "ALL accessible to non-experts."

What I'm saying is that any IDEA in physics should be explainable in
plain English. And if it's not understood, it should be explainable in
different words until it is understood (assuming that the listener is
of at least "normal" intelligence).

> > If you can't do that, then you
> > do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
> > have memorized.
> That too is a false premise. People who are experts in an area do
> understand it, and it is not just memorization. That doesn’t mean that it
> can be explained to laypeople who have not invested in the time and energy
> to learn it.

People who are "experts" in an area can be doing their work purely
by rote. They know what works and they do it over and over and over.

Teachers tend to teach what is in the textbook and what will be on the
tests. Ask them a question that they haven't memorized the answer to
and they often cannot answer.

I have a patent for a bi-directional hydraulic flow meter. When I invented
it I just had a rudimentary understanding of hydraulics. The "professionals"
all said such a thing was impossible to build using mostly just the basic
materials they used for one-directional hydraulic flow meters. I invented
one new part, and it worked perfectly. The first order was for $10,000 worth.

I'm a retired professional ANALYST. That means it was my JOB to go into
an area where the "experts" are just working by rote and have a problem they
cannot solve. I ANALYZE the problem and develop a solution.

Ed

Townes Olson

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 12:09:43 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 8:34:18 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > > Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
> > > unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
> > He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
>
> I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
> to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.

As usual, you mis-read. I pointed out that your "quote" was bogus, and then I gave you the actual origin of that quote, which was Rutherford's "barmaid" comment, and then I gave you the closest thing to that quote that can indirectly (via de Broglie) be related to Einstein. You ignore this information, and reply with three more bogus pseudo-quotes, i.e., three more memes that circulate among nitwits. Einstein did not write Hallmark greeting card slogans. I agree with the two better (and genuine) quotes of Feynman, that were written on his blackboard at the time of his death: "What I cannot create I don't understand", and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved". You should contemplate both of those quotes.

> You just recite memorized dogma...

That childish allegation is both false and pointless. I'm explaining to you, in quite simple terms, and with no mathematics at all, quantum electrodynamics. (You're welcome.) My explanations to you are neither dogma nor memorized. The people you are responding to here are telling you that the subject can't be explained simply, but I have explained it to you simply, and indeed you realized from my explanation that you needed to withdraw your "paper". You could actually gain some understanding of the subject if you would stop being distracted and focus on the subject, and ask questions about what you don't understand, and pay attention to the answers.

> I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
> on some kind of tiny particle.

Again, when describing light in terms of classical electromagnetism (e.g., oscillating electric and magnetic fields), you're not giving the lower-level quantum description in terms of photons. The classical fields are a conceptualization of the electromagnetic interaction that is actually, at the quantum level, mediated by photons. The classical electromagnetic field oscillates, but the underlying individual quanta (photons) that actually effectuate the fields do not oscillate. The phase of the source of a photon advances, and each photon carries the phase of the source at emission, and this phase does not advance between emission and absorption. If there is only one available path, the phase really doesn't matter, since all that matters is the magnitude, but if there are multiple paths of different path length the phases matter, because they can interfere.

When you talk about a tiny particle centered in the fields... well, that's pure nonsense, and you yourself have admitted that your belief cannot account for the interference pattern in the two-slit experiment, so it's unclear why you continue to espouse that thoroughly debunked belief.

> I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
> "cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?

No, I'd say the optimum word in English is mediate, especially considering the space-like virtual photon interactions that are bi-directional. Yes, this is standard terminology, but there is a reason it is standard - it most accurately conveys the meaning. It does not mean "bring about a result", and it does not mean "cause", it means mediate. If this simple English word is unfamiliar to you, then that may explain part of your difficulty. But after I have patiently described the meaning in even simpler English words, I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to complain about this lacuna in your own vocabulary. Don't blame me, blame your grade school. And, again, this whole digression was solely for the purpose of debunking your belief that photons are made of electromagnetic waves, when in fact it is the other way around, i.e., electromagnetic waves are made of photons (very crudely speaking). Bricks are not made of houses, but houses are made of bricks. A child could understand this.

Also, I've explained to you, in very simple terms, the sense in which a photon has a frequency, even though a photon does not oscillate. You always ignore the explanation. It is not complicated. A barmaid could understand it.

Ed Lake

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 12:15:40 PMSep 15
to
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:29:52 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 9/13/21 2:43 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
> >>>> This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
> >>>> fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
> >>>> word actually means.
> >>>
> >>> The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
> >>> or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
> >>> to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
> >>>
> >>> If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
> >> That’s simply not true.
> >
> > WHY is it "not true"?
> Because there are other physics contexts to which “frequency” applies other
> than a back-and-forth oscillation. This is an example of where physics
> jargon has subtle meanings that are not easily parseable by laypeople,
> which is no doubt frustrating to laypeople.

So, what you are saying is that YOU cannot comprehend the idea
that a photon oscillates because YOU have different meanings for the
word "frequency" and you do not know which meaning applies here?

> >
> >>> If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
> >>> how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
> >>>> this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
> >>>> modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
> >>>> reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
> >>>> BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
> >>>
> >>> But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
> >>> of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
> >>> closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
> >>> in some random direction.
> >> Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
> >
> > But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something
> Or escapes.
> > and get "reflected" AGAIN.
> > And again and again ..... until it escapes?
> Well, sure. Just like most sunlight escapes.

But that means what comes out of the Double-Slits is a lot of photons
that made it through on the first try AND even more photons that took
multiple tries to get through. Wouldn't that mean that there is a lot
of "interference" going on BEFORE photons exit the two slits?

> >
> >>> Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
> >> Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
> >>> So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
> >>> that hits the closed slit?
> >> You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
> >> jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
> >> or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
> >> where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
> >
> > But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
> > EVENTUALLY?
> Sure. No here is where quantitative calculation helps. You don’t know
> without that whether it is one in a hundred or one in a hundred trillion.
> > And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
> > to go through the slits on the first try?
> Virtually nothing. See the comment about the calculation just above.

If the comment is relevant, it should be explainable in plain English.

> >
> > [snip]
> >>>> No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
> >>>> photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
> >>>> Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
> >>>
> >>> Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
> >>> "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
> >> That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
> >
> > Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
> > "frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
> No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.