We dispel the need to attribute a dualistic nature to single photons that arrive, in a double slit experiment, at the screen one at a time. Interference is explained in a novel way based on known and accepted physics. The photon, being an excitation of the electromagnetic field, is regarded as a particle or more accurately a wavepacket, of a defined size, and not a wave.

Jul 8, 20230 citations

arXiv:1705.04150

A solution for the paradox of the double-slit experiment

G. Coddens

Published May 9, 2017• 2 citations

arXiv HTML PDF

Abstract

ψ_{1} + ψ_{2}

for the wave function of the double-slit experiment is numerically correct, but logically flawed. It has to be replaced in the interference region by the logically correct expression

ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2}

, which has the same numerical value as

ψ_{1} + ψ_{2}

, such that

ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2} = ψ_{1} + ψ_{2}

, but with

ψ'_{1} = {ψ_{1} +ψ_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}} \,e^{\imath {π\over{4}}} \neq ψ_{1}

and

ψ'_{2} = {ψ_{1} +ψ_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}}\,e^{-\imath {π\over{4}}}\neq ψ_{2}

. Here

ψ'_{1}

and

ψ'_{2}

are the correct contributions from the slits to the total wave function

ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2}

. We have then

p = |ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2}|^{2} = |ψ'_{1}|^{2} + |ψ'_{2}|^{2} = p_{1}+p_{2}

such that the paradox that quantum mechanics (QM) would not follow the traditional rules of probability calculus disappears.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1705.04150

Related papers

A proposal to get some common-sense intuition for the paradox of the double-slit experiment

G. Coddens

We argue that the double-slit experiment can be understood much better by considering it as an experiment whereby one uses electrons to study the set-up rather than an experiment whereby we use a set-up to study the behaviour of electrons. We also show that the concept of undecidability (like e.g. occurs in G\odel's theorem) can be used in an intuitive way to make sense of the double-slit experiment and the quantum rules for calculating coherent and incoherent probabilities. We meet here a situation where the electrons always behave in a fully deterministic way, while the detailed design of the set-up may render the question about the way they move through the set-up experimentally undecidable. It is very important to make a distinction in quantum mechanics between the determinism of nature (Einstein) and the decidability of a question within an experimental set-up (Bohr). The former is about the absolute truth of an answer to a yes or no question, and follows binary logic (true or false), the latter about what an experimental set-up can decide and tell about the truth of that answer, and follows ternary logic (true, false or undecidable). Binary and ternary logic are incompatible. The viewpoints of Bohr and Einstein are thus operating on different levels and it is only by confusing these two levels that these two viewpoints seem to be irreconcilable. We show that the expression $\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$ for the wave function of the double-slit experiment is numerically correct, but logically flawed. It has to be replaced in the interference region by the logically correct expression $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}$ , which has the same numerical value as $\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$ , such that $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2} = \psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$ , but with $\psi'_{1} = {\psi_{1} +\psi_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}} \,e^{\imath {\pi\over{4}} } \neq \psi_{1}$ and $\psi'_{2} = {\psi_{1} +\psi_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}}\,e^{-\imath {\pi\over{4}}}\neq \psi_{2}$ . Here $\psi'_{1}$ and $\psi'_{2}$ are the correct contributions from the slits to the total wave function $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}$ . We have then $p = |\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}|^{2} = |\psi'_{1}|^{2} + |\psi'_{2}|^{2} = p_{1}+p_{2} $ such that the paradox that quantum mechanics (QM) would not follow the traditional rules of probability calculus disappears. The paradox is rooted in the wrong intuition that $\psi_{1}$ and $\psi_{2}$ would be the true physical contributions to $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2} =\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$ like in the case of waves in a water tank. The solution proposed here is not {\em ad hoc} but based on an extensive analysis of the geometrical meaning of spinors within group representation theory and its application to QM. Working further on the argument one can even show that an interference pattern is the only way to satisfy simultaneously two conditions: The condition obeying binary logic (in the spirit of Einstein) that the electron has only two mutually exclusive options to get to the detector (viz. going through slit S $_{1}$ or going through slit S $_{2}$ ) and the condition obeying ternary logic (in the spirit of Bohr) that the question which one of these two options the electron has taken is experimentally undecidable. A very important element in the analysis is the problem of the non-existence of {\em common} probability distributions for different experimental set-ups. And this is a recurrent theme in other situations that are felt as paradoxical. The CHSH inequality used in the experiments of Aspect {\em et al.} clashes with quantum mechanics because it is based on the assumption that there would exist a {\em common} probability distribution for the hidden variables in the different experiments that have to be made to determine the various quantities that intervene in the inequality. That common probability distribution for measured quantities does not exist is well known from quantum mechanics itself (because the operators that come into play do not commute and therefore do not have common eigenstates, i.e. common probability amplitudes). But this non-existence of common probability distributions applies also to certain variables in the set-ups of the different experiments and the latter fact can also be explained by purely classical reasoning.We argue that the double-slit experiment can be understood much better by considering it as an experiment whereby one uses electrons to study the set-up rather than an experiment whereby we use a set-up to study the behaviour of electrons. We also show that the concept of undecidability (like e.g. occurs in G\odel's theorem) can be used in an intuitive way to make sense of the double-slit experiment and the quantum rules for calculating coherent and incoherent probabilities. We meet here a situation where the electrons always behave in a fully deterministic way, while the detailed design of the set-up may render the question about the way they move through the set-up experimentally undecidable. It is very important to make a distinction in quantum mechanics between the determinism of nature (Einstein) and the decidability of a question within an experimental set-up (Bohr). The former is about the absolute truth of an answer to a yes or no question, and follows binary logic (true or false), the latter about what an experimental set-up can decide and tell about the truth of that answer, and follows ternary logic (true, false or undecidable). Binary and ternary logic are incompatible. The viewpoints of Bohr and Einstein are thus operating on different levels and it is only by confusing these two levels that these two viewpoints seem to be irreconcilable. We show that the expression $\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$ for the wave function of the double-slit experiment is numerically correct, but logically flawed. It has to be replaced in the interference region by the logically correct expression $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}$, which has the same numerical value as $\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$, such that $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2} = \psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$, but with $\psi'_{1} = {\psi_{1} +\psi_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}} \,e^{\imath {\pi\over{4}} } \neq \psi_{1}$ and $\psi'_{2} = {\psi_{1} +\psi_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}}\,e^{-\imath {\pi\over{4}}}\neq \psi_{2}$. Here $\psi'_{1}$ and $\psi'_{2}$ are the correct contributions from the slits to the total wave function $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}$. We have then $p = |\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}|^{2} = |\psi'_{1}|^{2} + |\psi'_{2}|^{2} = p_{1}+p_{2} $ such that the paradox that quantum mechanics (QM) would not follow the traditional rules of probability calculus disappears. The paradox is rooted in the wrong intuition that $\psi_{1}$ and $\psi_{2}$ would be the true physical contributions to $\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2} =\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}$ like in the case of waves in a water tank. The solution proposed here is not {\em ad hoc} but based on an extensive analysis of the geometrical meaning of spinors within group representation theory and its application to QM. Working further on the argument one can even show that an interference pattern is the only way to satisfy simultaneously two conditions: The condition obeying binary logic (in the spirit of Einstein) that the electron has only two mutually exclusive options to get to the detector (viz. going through slit S$_{1}$ or going through slit S$_{2}$) and the condition obeying ternary logic (in the spirit of Bohr) that the question which one of these two options the electron has taken is experimentally undecidable. A very important element in the analysis is the problem of the non-existence of {\em common} probability distributions for different experimental set-ups. And this is a recurrent theme in other situations that are felt as paradoxical. The CHSH inequality used in the experiments of Aspect {\em et al.} clashes with quantum mechanics because it is based on the assumption that there would exist a {\em common} probability distribution for the hidden variables in the different experiments that have to be made to determine the various quantities that intervene in the inequality. That common probability distribution for measured quantities does not exist is well known from quantum mechanics itself (because the operators that come into play do not commute and therefore do not have common eigenstates, i.e. common probability amplitudes). But this non-existence of common probability distributions applies also to certain variables in the set-ups of the different experiments and the latter fact can also be explained by purely classical reasoning.

Oct 26, 20162 citations

Quantum behavior in the Double Slit Experiment and the limitations of the equipment used.

Ernest Heinz

Abstract: Many problems exist in the Double Slit Experiment when you consider that the elements in the test are moving as waves. Outside of the pattern resembling peeks and troughs that overlap each other; there is no real scientific explanation on how this is taking place. In a more accurate and classical way, can we explain how the dark and light areas of the interference pattern are being made? Why is an Interference pattern being made when particles are being sent through the exercise one at a time? And how is it that through observation the Interference pattern collapses in on itself. Waves add more questions than they do answers, a very typical outcome of an incorrect solution. Maybe the unanswered questions left behind by the wave theory is a confirmation of its inaccuracy and not the mystique of its results. Rather than double down on the wave theory with time traveling particles, elements of duality, and the Copenhagen Interpretation; l reconsidered that elements tested in the double slit experiment behave as particles. But this time, I weighed the thought that these bits of matter are much smaller than previously thought. This new logic allowed particles with straight trajectories to interact with the edge of materials used in the double slit wall in a very detailed way. This created a storm of new ways to look at what is really taking place in the test; revealing the competence of the detectors utilized and the capacity of the Nonlinear Optical Crystal. Everything solved from just one idea, that quantum move as particles but on a much smaller scale. This is the enigma of the Double Slit Experiment.Abstract: Many problems exist in the Double Slit Experiment when you consider that the elements in the test are moving as waves. Outside of the pattern resembling peeks and troughs that overlap each other; there is no real scientific explanation on how this is taking place. In a more accurate and classical way, can we explain how the dark and light areas of the interference pattern are being made? Why is an Interference pattern being made when particles are being sent through the exercise one at a time? And how is it that through observation the Interference pattern collapses in on itself. Waves add more questions than they do answers, a very typical outcome of an incorrect solution. Maybe the unanswered questions left behind by the wave theory is a confirmation of its inaccuracy and not the mystique of its results. Rather than double down on the wave theory with time traveling particles, elements of duality, and the Copenhagen Interpretation; l reconsidered that elements tested in the double slit experiment behave as particles. But this time, I weighed the thought that these bits of matter are much smaller than previously thought. This new logic allowed particles with straight trajectories to interact with the edge of materials used in the double slit wall in a very detailed way. This created a storm of new ways to look at what is really taking place in the test; revealing the competence of the detectors utilized and the capacity of the Nonlinear Optical Crystal. Everything solved from just one idea, that quantum move as particles but on a much smaller scale. This is the enigma of the Double Slit Experiment.

May 1, 20180 citations

When quantum mechanics becomes less weird

Youssef El Fidali

Abstract For about a century, physicists have been debating over the behavior of particles on a microscopic scale. Although the principle of the wave-particle duality is accepted in the scientific community, many experiments with puzzling results are still challenging quantum mechanics until now, such as the double slit experiment, entanglement, interferences of a single electron, or delayed choice quantum eraser. In this article, we shall bring forth explanations for some of these experiments. Unlike standard quantum mechanics (SQM) built by Schr¨odinger1 and P.Dirac2 which considers that the wave function is an abstract mathematical tool, our model takes up the concept of the pilot wave once initiated by physicists De Broglie and D.Bohm,3 who suggested that the wave associated to a quantum object has a real existence and that it is not simply a wave of probability. We shall discuss how this old-new conception of reality renders quantum mechanics ultimately less mysterious than it seems.Abstract For about a century, physicists have been debating over the behavior of particles on a microscopic scale. Although the principle of the wave-particle duality is accepted in the scientific community, many experiments with puzzling results are still challenging quantum mechanics until now, such as the double slit experiment, entanglement, interferences of a single electron, or delayed choice quantum eraser. In this article, we shall bring forth explanations for some of these experiments. Unlike standard quantum mechanics (SQM) built by Schr¨odinger1 and P.Dirac2 which considers that the wave function is an abstract mathematical tool, our model takes up the concept of the pilot wave once initiated by physicists De Broglie and D.Bohm,3 who suggested that the wave associated to a quantum object has a real existence and that it is not simply a wave of probability. We shall discuss how this old-new conception of reality renders quantum mechanics ultimately less mysterious than it seems.

Mar 14, 20230 citations

On the Single Electron Double Slit Experiment – A Randomly-Jumping Electron Approach

Lizhi Xin, Kevin Xin

Abstract One of the greatest mysteries that has puzzled and seemingly hoodwinked our very understanding of nature is the single electron double slit experiment – one that Feynman termed the central mystery of quantum mechanics. At the heart of this mystery is how can an electron that is a physical particle exhibit a wave-like property? We’ve proposed a non-counterintuitive way to explain this phenomenon called the randomly-jumping electron hypothesis, in which the electron randomly “jumps” in discrete succession to specific points only and not others which is what causes the electron to indeed be a classical particle only but is able to produce a wave-like interference pattern. To provide supporting evidence for our hypothesis, we’ve developed a computer program to simulate the single electron double slit experiment by treating the electron as a classical particle while still exhibiting wave-like fringes in agreement with real-world observed data of the single electron double slit experiment performed. Our interpretation does not set out to “solve” the mystery of why an electron can produce a wave-like interference pattern once and for all, however our hypothesis is a monism ontological interpretation that does address some of the crucial debates that have remained unsolved for 100 years since the formulation of quantum mechanics.Abstract One of the greatest mysteries that has puzzled and seemingly hoodwinked our very understanding of nature is the single electron double slit experiment – one that Feynman termed the central mystery of quantum mechanics. At the heart of this mystery is how can an electron that is a physical particle exhibit a wave-like property? We’ve proposed a non-counterintuitive way to explain this phenomenon called the randomly-jumping electron hypothesis, in which the electron randomly “jumps” in discrete succession to specific points only and not others which is what causes the electron to indeed be a classical particle only but is able to produce a wave-like interference pattern. To provide supporting evidence for our hypothesis, we’ve developed a computer program to simulate the single electron double slit experiment by treating the electron as a classical particle while still exhibiting wave-like fringes in agreement with real-world observed data of the single electron double slit experiment performed. Our interpretation does not set out to “solve” the mystery of why an electron can produce a wave-like interference pattern once and for all, however our hypothesis is a monism ontological interpretation that does address some of the crucial debates that have remained unsolved for 100 years since the formulation of quantum mechanics.

May 5, 20260 citations

Finally making sense of the double-slit experiment

Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Fabrizio Colombo +4 more

]. We rise to the challenge with an alternative to the wave function-centered interpretations: instead of a quantum wave passing through both slits, we have a localized particle with nonlocal interactions with the other slit. Key to this explanation is dynamical nonlocality, which naturally appears in the Heisenberg picture as nonlocal equations of motion. This insight led us to develop an approach to quantum mechanics which relies on pre- and postselection, weak measurements, deterministic, and modular variables. We consider those properties of a single particle that are deterministic to be primal. The Heisenberg picture allows us to specify the most complete enumeration of such deterministic properties in contrast to the Schrödinger wave function, which remains an ensemble property. We exercise this approach by analyzing a version of the double-slit experiment augmented with postselection, showing that only it and not the wave function approach can be accommodated within a time-symmetric interpretation, where interference appears even when the particle is localized. Although the Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures are equivalent formulations, nevertheless, the framework presented here has led to insights, intuitions, and experiments that were missed from the old perspective.]. We rise to the challenge with an alternative to the wave function-centered interpretations: instead of a quantum wave passing through both slits, we have a localized particle with nonlocal interactions with the other slit. Key to this explanation is dynamical nonlocality, which naturally appears in the Heisenberg picture as nonlocal equations of motion. This insight led us to develop an approach to quantum mechanics which relies on pre- and postselection, weak measurements, deterministic, and modular variables. We consider those properties of a single particle that are deterministic to be primal. The Heisenberg picture allows us to specify the most complete enumeration of such deterministic properties in contrast to the Schrödinger wave function, which remains an ensemble property. We exercise this approach by analyzing a version of the double-slit experiment augmented with postselection, showing that only it and not the wave function approach can be accommodated within a time-symmetric interpretation, where interference appears even when the particle is localized. Although the Heisenberg and Schrödinger pictures are equivalent formulations, nevertheless, the framework presented here has led to insights, intuitions, and experiments that were missed from the old perspective.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesMay 31, 201777 citations

The Double Slit Experiment Enigma - Resolved

Shlomo Barak

Jul 8, 20230 citations

ψ_{1} + ψ_{2}

for the wave function of the double-slit experiment is numerically correct, but logically flawed. It has to be replaced in the interference region by the logically correct expression

ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2}

, which has the same numerical value as

ψ_{1} + ψ_{2}

, such that

ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2} = ψ_{1} + ψ_{2}

, but with

ψ'_{1} = {ψ_{1} +ψ_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}} \,e^{\imath {π\over{4}}} \neq ψ_{1}

and

ψ'_{2} = {ψ_{1} +ψ_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}}\,e^{-\imath {π\over{4}}}\neq ψ_{2}

. Here

ψ'_{1}

and

ψ'_{2}

are the correct contributions from the slits to the total wave function

ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2}

. We have then

p = |ψ'_{1} + ψ'_{2}|^{2} = |ψ'_{1}|^{2} + |ψ'_{2}|^{2} = p_{1}+p_{2}

such that the paradox that quantum mechanics (QM) would not follow the traditional rules of probability calculus disappears.

\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}

for the wave function of the double-slit experiment is numerically correct, but logically flawed. It has to be replaced in the interference region by the logically correct expression

\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}

, which has the same numerical value as

\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}

, such that

\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2} = \psi_{1} + \psi_{2}

, but with

\psi'_{1} = {\psi_{1} +\psi_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}} \,e^{\imath {\pi\over{4}} } \neq \psi_{1}

and

\psi'_{2} = {\psi_{1} +\psi_{2}\over{\sqrt{2}}}\,e^{-\imath {\pi\over{4}}}\neq \psi_{2}

. Here

\psi'_{1}

and

\psi'_{2}

are the correct contributions from the slits to the total wave function

\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}

. We have then $p = |\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2}|^{2} = |\psi'_{1}|^{2} + |\psi'_{2}|^{2} = p_{1}+p_{2} $ such that the paradox that quantum mechanics (QM) would not follow the traditional rules of probability calculus disappears. The paradox is rooted in the wrong intuition that

\psi_{1}

and

\psi_{2}

would be the true physical contributions to

\psi'_{1} + \psi'_{2} =\psi_{1} + \psi_{2}

like in the case of waves in a water tank. The solution proposed here is not {\em ad hoc} but based on an extensive analysis of the geometrical meaning of spinors within group representation theory and its application to QM. Working further on the argument one can even show that an interference pattern is the only way to satisfy simultaneously two conditions: The condition obeying binary logic (in the spirit of Einstein) that the electron has only two mutually exclusive options to get to the detector (viz. going through slit S

_{1}

or going through slit S

_{2}

) and the condition obeying ternary logic (in the spirit of Bohr) that the question which one of these two options the electron has taken is experimentally undecidable. A very important element in the analysis is the problem of the non-existence of {\em common} probability distributions for different experimental set-ups. And this is a recurrent theme in other situations that are felt as paradoxical. The CHSH inequality used in the experiments of Aspect {\em et al.} clashes with quantum mechanics because it is based on the assumption that there would exist a {\em common} probability distribution for the hidden variables in the different experiments that have to be made to determine the various quantities that intervene in the inequality. That common probability distribution for measured quantities does not exist is well known from quantum mechanics itself (because the operators that come into play do not commute and therefore do not have common eigenstates, i.e. common probability amplitudes). But this non-existence of common probability distributions applies also to certain variables in the set-ups of the different experiments and the latter fact can also be explained by purely classical reasoning.