Hi Randall
I'm always a little gahgah here and everywhere. I was thinking that the double slit experiment related to this idea of multiple paths.
Sorry, you are accurate, I don't have any articles to draw upon that disagree with the double slit experiment, so anything I say can be ignored. I have only been able to piece together some statements from the likes of http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/6/4/1#qdot and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down_conversion.
I am sceptical of two things: our ability to produce a single isolated photon; our ability to detect a single photon.
Here is an excerpt from something I wrote elsewhere:
<start of exerpt>
http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/6/4/1#qdot said:
"In terms of suppressing multiple photon generation, we’ve achieved an order of magnitude below what you get from a laser," said Martin Ward, a member of the research team from Toshiba Research Europe.
This "order of magnitude" concerns me. How many orders of magnitude further do they really need to get before they actually get single photons.
http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/6/4/1#qdot said:
In contrast, Toshiba’s quantum-dot emitter reliably generates single photons on demand when excited by short optical pulses.
The "excited by short optical pulses" concerns me. The trigger is certainly not a single pulse. What guarantee is there that the multiple photon trigger is ever going to be able to trigger the emission of one photon.
http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/6/4/1#qdot said:
To date, single photon sources are notoriously difficult to build and rely on either heavily attenuating a laser or exciting single atoms. The drawback is that these schemes are often complex and it can be hard to prevent multiple photons being emitted.
If at all in my opinion. Probably the greatest source we have for separated photons (note I avoid the word single) is the cosmos where it takes time to build up enough photon collection to create a photographic detection. There is no way to take an instant snapshot of far distant objects in the universe. To my mind this alone is enough to question our ability to generate and detect single photons.
http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/6/4/1#qdot said:
"There are other ways of generating single photons, like down-conversion...
Spontaneous parametric down-conversion is an important process in quantum optics. A nonlinear crystal splits incoming photons into pairs of photons of lower energy whose combined energy and momentum is equal to the energy and momentum of the original photon.
Okay the old way aparently until the quantum dots. So a 'single' photon can be split into 'two' half intensity photons can it? Are 'single' photons infinitely divisible according to current science? I guess so if they are a 'wave'.
None of the above gives me confidence about our ability to separate light into single photons nor that a detector could be made to detect single photons which to my mind are individually just too small.
<end of exerpt>
I have also noticed that with the 'single photon' results that the pattern that is produced is a lot less perfect than the pattern produced by a continuous light source. The 'single photons' appear even where they wouldn't in the continuous light source results even sometimes at the mid way points and the coverage is greater overall than for the continuous source. This seems to describe less than perfect wave interference.
I'm in agreeance that we can obviously reduce the number of photons that are present by an order of magnitude but I'm doubtful that we are achieving single photons and I'm doubtful we can even detect a single photon. Even if we had a single photon it could do a lot of things other than what we want it to do. It could miss both slits entirelly, it could reflect, deflect, miss, it could react in a completely useless and undetectable way.
I'm more of the opinion that the so called detected 'single photons' are the gradual build up of a detectable 'dot' on the photographic material. By reducing the number of photons you can reduce the amount of scattered build up so that dots appear occasionally (and sometimes two or more at once). With enough random co-incident strikes over time in a similar region a detectable dot will eventuate.
I just think that a photon is too small and fast for us to harness. So instead I'm suggesting that multiple but fewer photons pass through the slits and interfere with each other and gradually build up to produce dots on the photographic material - just like space telescopes gradually build up a picture of distant galaxies.
In the same way that we can't take instant photos of very distant galaxies I also don't think that we can take instant photos of single photons.
I am purely extrapolating from what I have read and from my concept of how tiny and fast a photon really is in the scheme of things. In this respect you certainly don't have to give any credence to my scepticism of the double slit experiment. However if you think I make interesting points then give me that at least even if you don't agree.