Does the ubiquitousness of EM fields explain single particle

[sanpkl]

Does the (assumption of) ubiquitousness of EM fields explain single particle interference well/better?

Below is a rough logic, however it maybe need modifications.

The double slit or the mach-zehnder or any object changes the configuration of time-space and EM fields.

The photon may not know in advance what it will encounter in it's path however the EM fields might change instantaneously to reflect any changes in the configuration.

Thus the photon may appear to "know" things in advance, however it is due to the change in the EM field that reflect the change in obstacles in the path of the photon.

The photon may appear to take the shortest path because of the way the configuration of time-space (and EM fields) is.

 

[bhobba]

The double slit or the mach-zehnder or any object changes the configuration of time-space and EM fields.

Can you elaborate what you mean here because as it stands it doesn't really make any sense.

It is true that at the beginner level the view of Quantum Field Theory may be a better way to come to grips with the weirdness of QM:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0473179768/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks
Bill

 

[ZapperZ]

Does the (assumption of) ubiquitousness of EM fields explain single particle interference well/better?

Below is a rough logic, however it maybe need modifications.

The double slit or the mach-zehnder or any object changes the configuration of time-space and EM fields.

The photon may not know in advance what it will encounter in it's path however the EM fields might change instantaneously to reflect any changes in the configuration.

Thus the photon may appear to "know" things in advance, however it is due to the change in the EM field that reflect the change in obstacles in the path of the photon.

In addition to what bhobaa asked (I'm curious as well as what it means for an object to change the configuration of time-space and EM fields), do you think you can also explain interference effect using electrons, neutrons, buckyballs, supercurrents, etc... etc. In other words, does it generalize to the Schrodinger Cat-type superposition and interference? Because if it doesn't, then your explanation loses generality that had already been described via QM. So what possible advantage does your explanation have over that?

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't know what you are saying: "ubiquitousness" is a property of all fields, by definition, I don't understand what you mean by "Changes the configuration of time-space" - if you mean these words as they are conventionally used, this doesn't happen.

If this is a personal theory, please remember that these are not discussed on PF.