Demystifier said:The double slit "mystery" is a mystery when you consider a single photon, because the detection of a single photon does not show interference, and yet the statistics of many single photons does. To the extent that it is a "mystery" at all, it is a mystery even for a single slit interference.
To the extent that it is a "mystery" at all, it is a mystery even for a single slit interference.
The problem is that a single photon, when detected, appears as a particle with a relatively well defined position, and not as a wave widely expanded in space. And yet the associated wave is widely expanded in space. It looks like a contradiction or at least a puzzle.Zelebg said:What equation makes us think "single photon" equals only one wave? Why wouldn't a single wave interfere with itself like waves usually do?
Demystifier said:The problem is that a single photon, when detected, appears as a particle with a relatively well defined position, and not as a wave widely expanded in space. And yet the associated wave is widely expanded in space. It looks like a contradiction or at least a puzzle.
Zelebg said:The problem with the single photon double slit experiment is that single photon should not interfere with itself, but it’s not supposed to be a photon until it gets fully absorbed, so I ask where is the problem then if not photon, but a wave is interfering with itself?
EPR said:It's not just a wave. It lands as if it was a localised particle.
Why do you think so?Zelebg said:but it’s not supposed to be a photon until it gets fully absorbed
Demystifier said:Why do you think so?
EPR said:Those are single photons and single photons probably have very very small em wave width(due to very low energy).
In the double slit it's the probability wave that goes through both slits. Or that's the predominant mode of thinking. It's nonsense but still...Zelebg said:Looks like it's wide enough to go through, otherwise it would get absorbed between the slits and there wouldn't be a pattern. Isn't it the wavelength that needs to be in some special relation to the slits separation?
I do not.Zelebg said:You do not?
In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space...Zelebg said:In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space...
Demystifier said:By my bolding, you see that photons can be propagating too.
Well, nearly no-one.EPR said:In the double slit it's the probability wave that goes through both slits. Or that's the predominant mode of thinking. It's nonsense but still...
No one understands this. I mean no one.
EPR said:'photons' travel through space as oscillating EM waves
Optics?Mentz114 said:
Stuff like this is why Wikipedia is not in general an acceptable source under the Physics Forums rules. The struck-through part above is just plain wrong.Zelebg said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiationIn physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves(or their quanta, photons)of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space...
Who said that photons do not exhibit their wave nature while propagating through space?Zelebg said:Never heard of it before. If photons do not exhibit their wave nature while propagating through space, why would you expect them to interfere like waves?
Nugatory said:Stuff like this is why Wikipedia is not in general an acceptable source under the Physics Forums rules. The struck-through part above is just plain wrong.
You will also find that it has been removed from the most recent version of the article.
Just to make this explicit, you get the same type of "mystery" for a single slit. The only difference is in the shape of the probability distribution for many photons, which corresponds to the difference in the intensity patterns for classical light waves:Demystifier said:The double slit "mystery" is a mystery when you consider a single photon, because the detection of a single photon does not show interference, and yet the statistics of many single photons does.
Read the paper I cited. QFT gives the correct prediction for 'matter-waves'.EPR said:Optics?
The double slit experiment has been performed with matter as large as C60.
Explain the interference.
Zelebg said:Double slit - single photon experiment
Mystery: why is the pattern still there when emitting single photons.
Q1. Why is this a mystery, why would not a single EM wave interfere with itself like other kinds of waves do?
Cthugha said:I think you are asking the wrong question. The interesting question is why single photons show interference in a double slit and antibunching in a Hanbury Brown-Twiss experiment at the same time. In case you are not familiar with it: The HBT experiment is simply realized by directing a light field to a beamsplitter and placing single-photon-sensitive diodes at both output ports. If you send single photons towards the beamsplitter, you will find that both detectors will never click simultaneously and for each photon only one of the detectors will receive a detection event. This cannot be realized by considering only EM waves. In fact, the detectors can be placed arbitrarily far apart. Even so far apart that they are not within each others light cone.
Zelebg said:I don't see a problem with HBT. I would be surprised if a single photon could split in two. It seems there is an assumption that for a photon to interfere with itself it would first need to split, but in holography interference pattern is not the result of wave interference, but wave diffraction, which is simply direction bending of EM wave.
With respect, surely using analogies like of wavefronts and updates is old-fashioned, as is looking for mechanisms. The problem is handled in QFT by creating whatever is required in the inputs of the BS and evolving this state. The calculation agrees with experiment but it tells us nothing about a 'mechanism'. Perhaps assuming these things will lead to apparent paradoxes.Cthugha said:I think you still avoid the relevant problem. A photon certainly carries energy. If the photon is detected, all of the energy arrives exactly at the position of the detector. One may naively assume that the energy travels to the detector in a localized manner. Then the appearance of the double slit pattern is puzzling. One may also naively assume that the energy is somehow delocalized within the wave. In that case at the time of the detection, all the other positions of the wavefront must be "updated" instantaneously in order to ensure that the photon gets detected only once at the position of the detector. In this scenario the double slit pattern is trivial, but you run into problems with relativity and have non-locality as this "update" would happen faster than the speed of light. Of course you may also assume that this property is simply undefined between emission and detection. However, not everybody considers this as a satisfying answer.
Mentz114 said:With respect, surely using analogies like of wavefronts and updates is old-fashioned, as is looking for mechanisms. The problem is handled in QFT by creating whatever is required in the inputs of the BS and evolving this state. The calculation agrees with experiment but it tells us nothing about a 'mechanism'. Perhaps assuming these things will lead to apparent paradoxes.
Cthugha said:I think you still avoid the relevant problem. A photon certainly carries energy. If the photon is detected, all of the energy arrives exactly at the position of the detector. One may naively assume that the energy travels to the detector in a localized manner. Then the appearance of the double slit pattern is puzzling. One may also naively assume that the energy is somehow delocalized within the wave. In that case at the time of the detection, all the other positions of the wavefront must be "updated" instantaneously in order to ensure that the photon gets detected only once at the position of the detector. In this scenario the double slit pattern is trivial, but you run into problems with relativity and have non-locality as this "update" would happen faster than the speed of light. Of course you may also assume that this property is simply undefined between emission and detection. However, not everybody considers this as a satisfying answer.
EPR said:Single photon diffraction would produce markings on both slits for every photon's wave landing on the plate.
Zelebg said:I would like to know why and how exactly this principle fails in any kind of double slit experiment.
I wonder if you may have misunderstood my post. No doubt about the detectors but he was saying the 'classical' electromagnetic wave of a single photon was traveling through both slits and causing the interference. If this was the case(assume a 19 century knowledge and setup - prior to qm), one would probably expect interference effects from a single photon on the plate(provided the electromagnetic wave spread is bigger than the distance between the slits). I simply said what you said in your second post. Not sure if i did understand his question correctly but he seemed intent on using classical electrodynamics to explain single photon interference pattern. Which is impossible.PeterDonis said:No, it wouldn't, because putting anything at the slits that can detect the passage of a photon changes the results: only one slit gets a detection for each photon, and the interference pattern disappears.
EPR said:he was saying the 'classical' electromagnetic wave of a single photon was traveling through both slits and causing the interference. If this was the case(assume a 19 century knowledge and setup - prior to qm), one would probably expect interference effects from a single photon on the plate(provided the electromagnetic wave spread is bigger than the distance between the slits).
EPR said:he seemed intent on using classical electrodynamics to explain single photon interference pattern. Which is impossible.
Can the EM wave and the photon be considered as two distinct phenomenon where the wave guides the photon?Demystifier said:The problem is that a single photon, when detected, appears as a particle with a relatively well defined position, and not as a wave widely expanded in space. And yet the associated wave is widely expanded in space. It looks like a contradiction or at least a puzzle.
Yes, that's called Bohmian interpretation.kurt101 said:Can the EM wave and the photon be considered as two distinct phenomenon where the wave guides the photon?
It is my understanding that Bohmian mechanics says that the photon is guided by the quantum potential. I like the general idea of Bohmian mechanics, but not this aspect of it because it avoids explaining where the quantum potential came from other than Quantum Mechanics. So when you say that the explanation of the photon guided by the EM wave is a Bohmian mechanic interpretation, what does this mean exactly? Are you saying that Bohmian mechanics left the quantum potential piece unfinished and that Bohmians think there is a deeper mathematical explanation for the quantum potential that they have not yet figured out?Demystifier said:Yes, that's called Bohmian interpretation.
In the context of Bohmian mechanics, the concept of quantum potential is somewhat outdated. It is much more correct to say that the particle (photon or whatever) is guided by the wave function. It is the same wave function that appears in standard quantum mechanics (QM). Bohmian mechanics does not say where does this wave function come from, but standard QM also does not say that, so in this sense Bohmian mechanics is not more mysterious than standard QM. For more about Bohmian mechanics see e.g. my "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" linked in my signature below.kurt101 said:It is my understanding that Bohmian mechanics says that the photon is guided by the quantum potential. I like the general idea of Bohmian mechanics, but not this aspect of it because it avoids explaining where the quantum potential came from other than Quantum Mechanics. So when you say that the explanation of the photon guided by the EM wave is a Bohmian mechanic interpretation, what does this mean exactly? Are you saying that Bohmian mechanics left the quantum potential piece unfinished and that Bohmians think there is a deeper mathematical explanation for the quantum potential that they have not yet figured out?
If the Bohmian interpretation is simply that at some level a particle of sorts is guided by a wave of sorts then the Bohmian interpretation is an interpretation I subscribe to. It seems to be the simplest explanation for what we observe in experiments like the double slit and many others. More importantly it has the aspect of an interpretation that can be mathematically described and understood at a fundamental level even if we don't yet know what the underlying details are. I can't say the same for QFT.Demystifier said:In the context of Bohmian mechanics, the concept of quantum potential is somewhat outdated. It is much more correct to say that the particle (photon or whatever) is guided by the wave function. It is the same wave function that appears in standard quantum mechanics (QM). Bohmian mechanics does not say where does this wave function come from, but standard QM also does not say that, so in this sense Bohmian mechanics is not more mysterious than standard QM. For more about Bohmian mechanics see e.g. my "Bohmian mechanics for instrumentalists" linked in my signature below.
Holography deals with huge intensity of light and hence it is explained classicaly as a wave (EM wave). The paradox appears when you have separate particles (photons or other) coming one at a time (this Experiment is done). There is already no wave (physical) - just that particles somehow guided by the nonexising wave. In order to explain this Born introduced the probability wave. So that beast (particle - which is claimed to be point like) somehow sneaks tru both doors at the same time. In fact Feynman showed that it follows all possible paths from A to B at the same time. Nevertheless it is particle all the time whenever you try to observe it (it is born from an atom almost point, it is registered in atoms, on the way it is in a point (scattering on electrons - Compton).Zelebg said:What part of double slit mystery remains considering single slit can produce interference pattern as well? Does holography not fully explain those patterns behind any number of slits as a sort of "encoded image" of the slit(s)?
Does the word "focus" have any meaning in these kinds of experiments?
