Can Quantum Interference Be Explained Solely by Self-Interaction of Photons?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hernik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interference Photons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of quantum interference, particularly in the context of the double-slit experiment and whether such interference can be solely attributed to self-interaction of photons rather than interactions between multiple photons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the interference observed in the double-slit experiment can be explained solely by photons interfering with themselves, rather than with each other.
  • Another participant clarifies that standard interference patterns are typically the result of single-particle interference, which can involve various particles including photons, electrons, and others, while noting that two-particle interference is rare.
  • A follow-up question is posed regarding whether interference can be understood as a result of a photon being absorbed by multiple particles and then re-emitted, which is met with skepticism.
  • A participant argues against the idea that coherence can be preserved after multiple interactions, citing evidence that coherence can be lost even after a single interaction.
  • The discussion includes a reflection on the need to understand the standard description of quantum interference, indicating some uncertainty about its adequacy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of self-interaction versus interaction between multiple photons in quantum interference. There is no consensus on whether the standard description of quantum interference is sufficient or if alternative explanations should be pursued.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding the preservation of coherence in interactions and the need for clarity on the established descriptions of quantum interference.

Hernik
Messages
108
Reaction score
2
I have a question which maybe shows that I'm not trained in physics. I hope someone will answer anyway.

When a single photon in a doubble slit experiment is shown to interfere with itself is there then any need to talk about photons interfering with each other. Could all interfernce of light not then be explained as photons interfering with themselves and not with each other?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Er... all of the "standard" interference pattern that we are familiar with are all single-particle interference. This can be from photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc... 2-particle interference almost never occurs. So even if you do this with a steady stream of particles (or light), the effect you see is the result of each individual particle's interference.

Zz.
 
Thanks. That was great to get cleared up. Now a follow up question then: Interference of light always happens as it interacts with particles right? So can the interference be understood as a result of energy from one photon being absorbed by a multiple particles and sent off again?
 
Hernik said:
Thanks. That was great to get cleared up. Now a follow up question then: Interference of light always happens as it interacts with particles right? So can the interference be understood as a result of energy from one photon being absorbed by a multiple particles and sent off again?

No. You will have a tough time convincing anyone that you can preserve coherence after such multiple events. We have seen evidence that a single-particle system can lose coherence with just ONE interaction.

So why are we pursuing this avenue when there is a well-formulated description of quantum interference? What's wrong with the standard description?

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
So why are we pursuing this avenue when there is a well-formulated description of quantum interference? What's wrong with the standard description?

Zz.

I guess the sorry answer is that I need to look into that description of quantum interference. Thank you for your help :-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K