Where do all the interfered photons go?

[rchase]

ppzmis has given me something to think about. I do have some "personal misthinkings" interfering with my complete acceptance of theory. I'm sure this is easy to relate to. Theories always seem to be incomplete, yet useful. Useful is what matters ultimately. (The point of the scientific method is to separate useful beliefs from junk.)

I am now well reminded of the fact that the electromagnetic wave can leaves the source as a wave, and interferes until a particle is detected.
Also, I am clear that once the wave is even partially affected by detection, it 'seems' to coalesce into a deterministic particle path.

I once realized that the wave particle duality would not be such a problem if it were not for all the structure of matter. A wave cannot be detected with another wave alone, matter must be involved. When a wave is emitted, it is not a particle until it interacts with the 'certainty' of a test particle.

I realize I have been soley taking aim at the wave particle duality without realizing it. I will have difficulty talking on the forums, my beliefs let me see no difference between the wave and a sea of overlapping particles, I can even account for electrostatics and gravity. What a creative mind will do to simplifiy... Sorry, this forum might not the right place to explore my question. I'm straightened out none the less, thank you. I accept the physics.

 

[rchase]

Has a background of very densely interfered photons been ever mathematically substituted for the waves? I presume this might align with concepts like loop gravity etc... Are there any theories which define vacuum fluctuations as a sea of interfering photons?

 

[rchase]

if there were as many Ganges rivers as the sand-grains of the Ganges, would the sand-grains of them all be many? (Good night.)

 

[Rap]

Has a background of very densely interfered photons been ever mathematically substituted for the waves? I presume this might align with concepts like loop gravity etc... Are there any theories which define vacuum fluctuations as a sea of interfering photons?

You are mixing up waves and photons. The wave gives you the probability of finding a photon. If the wave is zero, THERE ARE NO PHOTONS. Photons do not interfere, waves interfere. There is no such thing as an interfered photon, its a contradiction in terms.

If you add two coherent beams together that are 180 degrees out of phase, nothing comes out, no photons, no energy, no momentum, nothing.

If the two beams are separate before they are added, their individual energy, momentum, photons, whatever are redirected elsewhere. Energy and momentum are conserved.

 

[zonde]

How does the absorbing medium determine whether the photon is a destructively or constructively interfered photon?

Previous photons that have reached absorbing medium before particular photon create the state in medium that can interfere (or resonate) with particular photon.

Single photon interference can be nicely explained if we assume that photons are simply redistributed. However this approach will require some action at a distance when trying to explain Bell type photon experiments.

I don't understand how. Can you explain that more fully?

This is done using pilot-wave interpretation.
In case of double slit experiment this interpretation says that photons don't take straight paths but instead are deflected toward constructive interference areas.

 

[rchase]

Does the path of a charged particle in a weak magnetic field absorb photons in a quantized to curve it's path, or just interact with the background field? The question is, is everything end up photons, or not all electromagnetic interactions? Or do we only consider the wave photons when it hits a "atom" with both a positive and negative charge?