Last edited by a moderator:
The difference comes more in what the drawing or animation looks like. If you show a wave as a circle leaving the electron or atom, you should use at least two expanding circles representing the photon at a particular wavelength. You can imagine how difficult this is if you are trying to represent a photon shot from an atom on the sun, arriving at the earth 8 minutes later. I agree that the calculations are the same.I don't see a significative difference between this and the wave description.
From the article: "Simulation results. – First, we show that our eventby-Ok... So in other words if we treat the double slit like a Fresnel biprism, we can reproduce the quantum effects using a classical particle model.
As I see it, they are only tracking the normal properties of a photon, perhaps "message" is not the best word. They are really only keeping track of the photons energy/wavelength, its initial polarity (which they assign randomly when the photon is generated) and how far it has gone (used to calculate the probability of a refraction vs a reflection).Furthermore: isn't the fact that "each photon carries a message" a hidden variable description?
The results of this experiment would be interesting. The animation would get no interference pattern.... an experiment whereby 100 different double slits are lined up in a row and a source moves along the length of the row shooting one photon or electron at a time, and seeing if an interference pattern emerges when the images behind all of the slits are superimposed.
I don't think you can consider it as a "normal property of a photon"; phase is a property of the wave, not of the photon; all the photons must be exactly equal, indistinguishable, they cannot have an internal "clock" which signs different times for each photon, if you don't want a hidden variable description.As I see it, they are only tracking the normal properties of a photon, perhaps "message" is not the best word. They are really only keeping track of the photons energy/wavelength, its initial polarity (which they assign randomly when the photon is generated) and how far it has gone (used to calculate the probability of a refraction vs a reflection).Furthermore: isn't the fact that "each photon carries a message" a hidden variable description?
Yes, I agree with you that QM says there would be an interference pattern.Why do you say that? Wouldn't orthodox QM say there WOULD be an interference pattern?
As I understand this simulation, you may be reading too much into it. The interference pattern in the simulation is caused because the detectors ions have a memory. Ie, if an ion in the detector gets hit with a small energy photon, that amount of energy is stored with the ion (maybe the electron bounces around the ion faster without escaping) and if it gets hit a second time with another small energy photon it goes off (ionizes). In this way, you get an interference pattern (ie. a peak of energy) right down the center between the 2 slits.But wait: this is a computer simulation of the double slit experiment. What has "consciousness" of what within a computer simulation? What does it mean for the simulated photon to have "information" about its simulated route?
Maybe the interference pattern builds because a human which-way consciousness is required, and there is no human consciousness within the framework of a computer simulation of an experiment.