Single photon double slit, reset detector after each impact

[Derek Potter]

http://www.sao.ru/drabek/CCDP/Hamamatsu/CAMERAS/PiasE.htm .
It offers a large detection surface (20 mm dia) .
and can be scanned (read) while counting ( counting measurement is not affected by the scan TV rate )
There is no need to presume.
No one appears to be interested in finding the requested exeriment.
I'm sorry.

Don't worry. We all think we can pick holes in QM when we first come across it. Your experiment would not prove anything as I have already explained. Or rather it would only produce a significant result if detectors had memories. This would show up in an elementary analysis of detector performance. You would not need an elaborate experiment such as the one you propose. Manufacturers and researchers would have found the effect long ago whenever they perform standard autocorrelation tests to ensure that their detectors work properly. A significant result would have been all over the news: "Elementary experiments in a Chinese factory disprove quantum mechanics once again."

 

[zonde]

http://www.sao.ru/drabek/CCDP/Hamamatsu/CAMERAS/PiasE.htm .
It offers a large detection surface (20 mm dia) .
and can be scanned (read) while counting ( counting measurement is not affected by the scan TV rate )
There is no need to presume.

Yes, you are right.

No one appears to be interested in finding the requested exeriment.
I'm sorry.

I would say that no one (including me) believes that such an experiment has ever been performed.
Sorry.

 

[DrChinese]

I'm starting to study QM and I can not afford to take for granted the neutrality of the detector, even if most of others apparently presume it as a fact.
If it is, as you say, 'well established' then show me the experiment. I'm not asking for opinions.

And yet, an opinion you will get... :)

You don't have to accept anything, including the "neutrality of the detector". However, as a newbie, picking and choosing what you accept from basic theory/experiment will not be very productive. There is no generally accepted theory that indicates that the "reset" button changes the results in any meaningful manner. There is also no generally accepted theory that says the results are different on Thursdays. Perhaps theory is wrong and an experiment would show as much.

But... there are many scientific tests performed which are not written up and published. I would say that many if not most "null" results do not find their way into the literature. So you may need to perform the test yourself if you want to see it published to your satisfaction.

On the other hand, there has been work performed with *theory* (not experiment) to show that some kind of quantum "memory" exists. Unfortunately, such work has failed to explain most of the basics and so has been contradicted by experiment. See for example (and note that the detector does not need to be the source of the hypothetical memory):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0647
Beam-splitters don't have memory: a comment on "Event-based corpuscular model for quantum optics experiments'' by K.Michielsen et al

 

[UfoOvni]

And yet, an opinion you will get... :)

You don't have to accept anything, including the "neutrality of the detector". However, as a newbie, picking and choosing what you accept from basic theory/experiment will not be very productive.

Thank you.
I'm very curious about the experimental outcome and I will not be surprised if the result is not the most expected one.
I'm not aware of the theory you have linked. ("EBCM does not faithfully reproduce all experimental data" is not a good start)
I do not know if QM can accommodate , or not, a null result, i.e. without interference on the aggregation of all the partial images colected.
I'd make the test if I could.

 

[Derek Potter]

And yet, an opinion you will get... :)...
Beam-splitters don't have memory: a comment on "Event-based corpuscular model for quantum optics experiments'' by K.Michielsen et al

I suppose my comment about a Chinese factory was bound to elicit a reponse from you .
Section E is very clear. In particular it refers to the anomalous statistics that must occur while a memory-ridden device settles down.

 

[UfoOvni]

I suppose my comment about a Chinese factory was bound to elicit a reponse from you .
Section E is very clear. In particular it refers to the anomalous statistics that must occur while a memory-ridden device settles down.

In that E Section : "In WT a single event (i.e., a photon entering the interferometer) leaves no trace (memory) in the apparatus. The device behaves in the same way for the firstevent and for event number 10000"
The result of the experiment I devise has the potential to clarify that sentence.
I follow Descartes in Discourse_on_the_Method "The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice,.." (roots of the Scientific method)