Recent content by aletheia

I don’t think so. That response wasn’t even about the content of this nice thread — that was a response from the (well) deleted comment from another user who posted a paper not mainstream physics. That aside, we’re pretty much understanding (slowly but surely) each others. I think that the...

Im not the one obsessed with semantics. Im speaking about an obvious causal relation between emission and absorption of “it”. Could you please explain what you are having difficulty understanding about “it”?

Exactly! Whatever the formalism calls “that which is radiated”, it originates from a physical change in a material source, develops as an extended/wave-like electromagnetic structure through the apparatus, and eventually terminates in another interaction with material matter at the detector. So...

No! Your comment means that you (and others, since it’s not the first time…) believe that you can disprove an argument without knowing the argument — which, from a medical perspective, is delusional (Im not saying that you are delusional and I don’t mean to offend, I make this reservation...

This is actually the response of the original question of this thread. Classical optics equation describes what QM equation predicts.

Fine — if you’re still attached to semantics, don't call it a photon before detection. Don't assign it a position, trajectory, a definite photon number, etc.; What physical state of the electromagnetic system is modified by the source, reaches and interacts with the two slits, such that...

Not at all. My reasoning comes from observation. However, when it comes to QM, I can’t experiment at home. While physicists worry about the measurement, Im more interested in the physical reality of the experiment, i.e., in the double slits, what is made and what is happening from the source to...

A later energy-momentum exchange at the detector is causally conditioned by an earlier preparation at the source — that’s my point; I’m not imagining a particle flying around… There is, nevertheless, an ordered physical process: a physical change (or excitation, or else) at the source, an...

“[…] filled with […]” — could you care to be more specific…? “[…] No one shoots them anywhere.” — so you’re saying that… the photons don’t leave the photon emitter (i.e., the single-photon source) to reach the screen?

While I appreciate your answer, the equations are not the physical reality themselves. One photon is one photon. One photon leaves one mark — not two half-marks. As far as I know, the wave-particle duality has not yet been fully comprehended. So, the question is still up: is it wave, is it...

So, basically, we agreed on this…

I get your point, nonetheless, what is treated as a “mystery” in the double slit experiments usually is when the “observer” (i.e., a forced physical interaction) is on, since it “break the interference pattern”. [Moderator's note: Off topic content deleted.] The apparatus changes the set up of...

Thanks. Even if you didn’t understand my question, your answer is exactly what I was wondering about, so, I do very much appreciated your attention. Cheers.

If you really think my problem is “basic math”, then it’s on you — for not understanding it and for this passive-aggressive argument. What I’m actually doing is understanding where exactly might be the problem between quantum mechanics discreteness and relativistic physics continuity. I’m also...

Has this question been explicitly discussed in the quantum-foundations literature? Classical optics: I(x) ∝ |E₁(x) + E₂(x)|² Single-quantum case: P(x) ∝ |ψ₁(x) + ψ₂(x)|² What appears statistically in QM is the same interference structure from wave optics? The most recent papers...