You also have to know the times at which the photon is at these positions. It’s not enough to say “there’s a dot on the film here”, you also have to be able to say when that dot appeared. You can do that for the detection event but not the emission event.if I know the initial position and the final position of the photon....
Let's say you shine a beam of light trough long cylinder of glass. Let's say that cylinder is so long that the path around cylinder trough the air would take less time for light to travel. Would you expect that light will go around cylinder just because this path takes less time to travel?But assuming this principle, there could be only one right path. if the photon had to go through both slits that means one of these trajectories was longer than the other one and would take more time and more action. and we know light takes the path of least action and least time.
Idea that quantum particles are somehow switching between particle like behavior and wave like behavior is simply flawed. If this idea is hunting you, you can try to adopt Bohmian interpretation to get rid of it.But it's certainly an alternative idea to a shy particle that quickly turns into a distribution wave-like glob when people aren't looking at it and then back into a particle again when people are looking.
You're wrong. As I stated earlier, and Feynman eloquently explains, the assumption that the photon goes through either one slit or the other leads to a contradiction with experiment, so it cannot be true. Again quoting Feynman, "You'll have to accept it. It's the way nature works. If you want to know how nature works, we looked at it, carefully. Looking at it, that's the way it looks. You don't like it? Go somewhere else, to another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy."... And it's either going to be one of these holes, because I have to take the minima of the action.
Correct me if I'm wrong. :3
The quantum mechanical explanation for the double-slit experiment isn’t anything like that.But it's certainly an alternative idea to a shy particle that quickly turns into a distribution wave-like glob when people aren't looking at it and then back into a particle again when people are looking.
The issue here is that you don't know enough about the physics to be coming up with fanciful ideas. There are a lot of variations around the double slit, and without being familiar with those, you will end up with "alternatives" that are contradicted by experiment.I don't know.
But it's certainly an alternative idea ...
QED tells you that the idea of a "path of a photon" doesn't make sense. That's why the action principle is applied to fields rather than to "trajectories" in the evaluation of QFT path integrals: It's derived from applying the saddle-point approximation to the path integral, which provides a formal expansion in powers of ##\hbar##, i.e., is a systematic expansion around the "classical field-theory limit", i.e., in this case Maxwell classical electrodynamics.Using the principle of least action can you figure out which path the photon took, or which slit it went thru given some initial condition. Or is this not possible and why.