I still feel like that is a misrepresentation. At the end of the day, a single photon hits the detector. The detector interacts with a single photon. It is the photon's position upon reaching the detector that is determined by the sum of probabilities. Thus, the probabilities are acting upon the...
But isn't adding the probability amplitudes together a representation of this interaction built into the equation? I'm not implying anything like bits of one wave colliding with the bits of other waves as you mentioned previously. I'm making no assumption as to what this interaction actually...
Alright, I'm with you on three. Just a couple things on one and two.
First off, I'm not sure of a better word to use. Perhaps it is not an interaction in the classical sense, but it is the various possibilities together which result in the interference pattern. As DrChinese wrote, "Quantum...
So it's the interaction between all of the possibilities that produce interference patterns? D1 and D2 include possibilities from both slits resulting in the interference pattern, while the possibilities relevant to D3 and D4 include only one slit, which then results in the apparent particle...
So is it simply a mystery? I would be ecstatic if I could get a simple "we don't know" as an answer to my question. This would allow me to stop scratching my head and leave it to greater minds than mine to scratch theirs.
Here's a quote from one of Richard Feynman's lectures in reference to the...
But none of the detectors truly see anything. They simply detect the photons. The experiment is setup so as to not interfere with the photons at the point in which they pass through the slits. Instead, this information is provided implicitly when the idler photons bounce off the initial beam...
Thanks, Derek. If I understand correctly, this solves the mystery of retrocausality.
I'm also wondering why the results then differ between D1/D2 and D3/D4 in the way they do. Is this something that scientists simply haven't been able to explain yet, or is there some rationale? Perhaps...
I assume by decoherence, you're referring to the collapse of the wave function? Is that correct?
Also, I could be wrong, but that chapter seemed to deal largely with refuting retrocausality. I'm particularly interested in why the results differ between D1/D2 and D3/D4. Could you provide any...
One guy was like, "The truth is actually quite obvious and less mysterious that often presented. It is of the "eating your cake and having it" kind. You cannot detect a photon just after it has passed the slits and still expect the same photon to reach the screen. At the very least your efforts...
My mind was blown upon discovering this experiment. Subsequent attempts at putting my brain back together have all failed miserably. All posts trying to demystify the experiment have either appeared flawed or were too complex for my primitive liberal arts brain to understand. Now I fear such...