Wave packet interpretation

[selfsimilar]

TL;DR

In an old paper the authors claim that a wave packet of a sort can explain the double slit experiment.

A thought crossed my mind that a wave packet might explain the double slit experiment. Upon googling for the idea I came across a paper that claims to be as such. Has anybody any idea about it and what has become of it.


https://uweb.engr.arizona.edu/~ziol...aawari_Besieris_Ziolkowski_Phys_Lett_1994.pdf

 

[selfsimilar]

Here are two other papers that might shed more light on the subject

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/serve.../d01510fa-41c6-449a-9026-7084901e0ded/content
https://uweb.engr.arizona.edu/~ziol...ieris_Shaarawai_Ziolkowski_Am_J_Phys_1993.pdf

 

[Nugatory]

A thought crossed my mind that a wave packet might explain the double slit experiment

Is there something unexplained about the double-slit experiment? If so, what?

 

[selfsimilar]

Is there something unexplained about the double-slit experiment? If so, what?

My understanding of the paper is that it tries to reproduce the results of the double slit experiment by assuming electron, photon, etc. as a nondispersive wave packet not a particle or a wave( plane wave).

"Finally, it should be emphasized that the wave function used here is a classical entity that travels in physical space, in sharp contrast with the quantum mechanical wave function that exists only in an abstract space. As a consequence, there is no collapse of the wave function, but instead we have the action of the central part of the field which can represent a light particle"

 

[pines-demon]

My understanding of the paper is that it tries to reproduce the results of the double slit experiment by assuming electron, photon, etc. as a nondispersive wave packet not a particle or a wave( plane wave).

"Finally, it should be emphasized that the wave function used here is a classical entity that travels in physical space, in sharp contrast with the quantum mechanical wave function that exists only in an abstract space. As a consequence, there is no collapse of the wave function, but instead we have the action of the central part of the field which can represent a light particle"

I see no problem with this assumption as so far as we restrict all microscopic physics to the double slit experiment. It can be proven that this feature of quantum mechanics can be simulated by some hidden classical dynamics. However that's so far as it can go. As soon as you have two particles (entanglement) no classical underlying theory is to be found.

Note that the double slit was so shocking at the beginning because (1) it was totally unexpected that electrons and other matter particles behaved wavy (2) an interference patterns appear even if you send one particle at the time (not that the electron cannot be split into two and that even if it is a wave you have to tell me what is the wave made of). Also how does that explain other features of quantum mechanics? Quantized energy levels? Hydrogen atom?

 

[selfsimilar]

I see no problem with this assumption as so far as we restrict all microscopic physics to the double slit experiment. It can be proven that this feature of quantum mechanics can be simulated by some hidden classical dynamics. However that's so far as it can go. As soon as you have two particles or entanglement no classical underlying theory is to be found.

Note that the double slit was so shocking at the beginning because (1) it was totally unexpected that electrons and other matter particles behaved wavy (2) an interference patterns appear even if you send one particle at the time (not that the electron cannot be split into two and that even if it is a wave you have to tell me what is the wave made of).

Thanks for the reply. Yes, soon after posting and thinking about it I thought the same i.e. what about the rest. So I thought that later citations might have picked up on it and developed it further. Although they have many citations but they are allover the place with optics being a major subject.

But your question about what are they made of, I would suspect they will tell you to be something like EM not made of "anything" , just a mathematical entity(field) with some parameter characterizing them. But I really don't know what they will say about entanglement (maybe long tail??)

 

[pines-demon]

But your question about what are they made of, I would suspect they will tell you to be something like EM not made of "anything" , just a mathematical entity(field) with some parameter characterizing them. But I really don't know what they will say about entanglement (maybe long tail??)

The rhetorical question is to make you say "electron field, duh" (which is exactly what any modern theory would actually requires).

 

[selfsimilar]

The rhetorical question is to make you say "electron field, duh" (which is exactly what any modern theory would actually requires).

Yes of course. Although they have the model for Dirac and Klein-Gordon , but no interaction picture in sight. Since it is very old paper and their last published is 2004, they are either dead or have faded away like a good soldier