If we turn down our light source from 100 million whatever photons a second to, say, just ten a second, we see the problem, if not the screen, very clearly. These last few photons of light head off, one by one, for the screen, some of them hitting the piece of card but the odd one going through a slit. Now, according to common sense, each should be able to land on the screen unaffected by whether the other slit is there-or not. But none of them, no matter how long we wait, will try to land on the dark areas seen in the interference pattern with lots of light. After all, if an individual photon could behave in this way, it might take a long time but, eventually, the screen would record a picture more like the one-slit experiment with the light diffusing evenly, than the interference one. And the individual photons recognise the contradiction. They continue to behave individually as ‘waves’ all on their own. Points where the light particle could go when just one slit is open become unavailable when the other slit is open. (Incidentally, the same thing, scientists have observed, will happen with any small particle-electrons, whole atoms or even molecules will do just as well.) In experiments, the individual particles of light seem to know about the other slit on the piece of card, indeed what is going on elsewhere in the universe. For, in principle at least, the distance between the slits can be any size, and the same interference effect will apply. (Although if the slits were even a metre apart, the screen might need to be on the moon before the deflected light begins to converge.) Suppose we asked our neighbour if we could borrow their particle detector to check whether the light energy is still travelling in ‘whole photons’, rather than splitting into two and going through both slits and thereby getting in and out of phase with each other. We would find, indeed, that it was still travelling as a whole photon, and that this attempted explanation does not fit with observation. But we would find something else too. The mere act of putting the particle detector next to one slit causes the wavy pattern, the ‘interference’ effect, to disappear!
If we turn down our light source from 100 million whatever photons a second to, say, just ten a second, we see the problem, if not the screen, very clearly. These last few photons of light head off, one by one, for the screen, some of them hitting the piece of card but the odd one going through a slit. Now, according to common sense, each should be able to land on the screen unaffected by whether the other slit is there-or not. But none of them, no matter how long we wait, will try to land on the dark areas seen in the interference pattern with lots of light. After all, if an individual photon could behave in this way, it might take a long time but, eventually, the screen would record a picture more like the one-slit experiment with the light diffusing evenly, than the interference one. And the individual photons recognise the contradiction. They continue to behave individually as ‘waves’ all on their own. Points where the light particle could go when just one slit is open become unavailable when the other slit is open. (Incidentally, the same thing, scientists have observed, will happen with any small particle-electrons, whole atoms or even molecules will do just as well.) In experiments, the individual particles of light seem to know about the other slit on the piece of card, indeed what is going on elsewhere in the universe. For, in principle at least, the distance between the slits can be any size, and the same interference effect will apply. (Although if the slits were even a metre apart, the screen might need to be on the moon before the deflected light begins to converge.) Suppose we asked our neighbour if we could borrow their particle detector to check whether the light energy is still travelling in ‘whole photons’, rather than splitting into two and going through both slits and thereby getting in and out of phase with each other. We would find, indeed, that it was still travelling as a whole photon, and that this attempted explanation does not fit with observation. But we would find something else too. The mere act of putting the particle detector next to one slit causes the wavy pattern, the ‘interference’ effect, to disappear!
Abstract Since it was born before its physical achievements, light waves, which have almost no physical properties, are an abstract mathematical concept rather than an objective description. Confused by a set of dark and light streaks and a sketchy schematic that had little to do with the actual result, the double-slit test was misjudged as being caused by interfering light waves, so this plausible principle implied disastrous flaws. For example, (1) Just after passing through the double-slit device, the pattern is generated by light early or before interference. By changing the distance between the device and the screen, the pattern is only scaled synchronously without being reconstructed by interference, and imagined light-wave interference does not occur. (2) Interfering light waves can be subdivided into multiple parts and proliferate greatly. (3) A headless wave of light left outside the screen after the head disappears can still induce much interference. (4) There is no interference effect caused by reflected light waves. (5) The effect of polarization direction on interference is neglected, and the interference condition is incomplete. (6) In the mathematical model, not only are the spots with the highest brightness in the position where dark stripes should appear most, but the principle of generating multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found. (7) Since the quantum property must be carried out in the process of interference, if all conditions are not met at the same time, interference will not be triggered, and therefore, the principle of interference will be rejected. (8) Since light comes only from the radiation of the electron transition, it is impossible to generate a light source in a slit that may be a vacuum. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photon that has collapsed into a particle should be tested again with a double slit test. (10) Whether the phenomenon of "observed tampering results" obtained by observation has been tampered with. (11) When the phase is shifted π or the signal is reversed, waves become negative waves capable of annihilating themselves, which is typical of antimatter. In this case, matter and antimatter are conjoined. (12) If the general law of waves is followed, not only the targeted light wave passes through the slit. (13) The original version of the double-slit test cannot be reproduced, and the test results are different from those presented by contemporary technology. (14) Waves must obey Fourier's principle, but light waves, quantum waves and matter waves do not. (15) The modulation effect that waves must produce is not present in optical fiber communication. (16) If the light from different slits must interfere with each other, a mask full of slits will cause the lithographer to fail. (17) Since the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is only a sampling of the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not presented. (18) The fact that the two stars orbiting each other do not change color only proves that the phenomenon of redshift is impossible but does not support the inference that the speed of light is constant. (19) The Michelson-Morley test process is not open and transparent enough, and pinhole diffraction and mechanical processing using broken lines instead of curves cannot be ruled out. (20) Kepler's law can block Hubble's law and its derivatives, dark matter and dark energy. In conclusion, Newton's particle model was wrong, but neither was the light wave theory.
Abstract Since it was born before its physical achievements, light waves, which have almost no physical properties, are an abstract mathematical concept rather than an objective description. Beguiled by a series of dark and bright streaks, the results of the double-slit test were misjudged as interfering light waves, so this plausible principle implied disastrous flaws. For example, (1) by changing the distance between the device and the screen, the pattern is only scaled synchronously and not reconstructed, and the expected light-wave interference does not occur. (2) Interfering light waves can be subdivided into multiple parts and proliferate greatly. (3) A headless wave of light left outside the screen after the head disappears can still induce much interference. (4) There is no interference effect caused by reflected light waves. (5) The effect of polarization direction on interference is neglected, and the interference condition is incomplete. (6) In the mathematical model, the location where the dark stripe should appear most is actually the spot with the highest brightness. The principle of generating multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found in the mathematical model. (7) Since the quantum property must be expressed in the process of interference, interference will not be triggered if all conditions are not met at the same time, and therefore, the principle of interference will be rejected. (8) Since light comes only from the radiation of the electron transition, it is impossible to generate a light source in a slit that may be a vacuum. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photon that has collapsed into a particle should be tested again with a double slit test. (10) Whether the phenomenon of "observed tampering results" obtained by observation has been tampered with. (11) When the phase is shifted π or the signal is reversed, waves become negative waves capable of annihilating themselves, which is typical of antimatter. In this case, matter and antimatter are conjoined. (12) If the general law of waves is followed, not only the targeted light wave passes through the slit. (13) The original version of the double-slit test cannot be reproduced, and the test results are different from those presented by contemporary technology. (14) Waves must obey Fourier's principle, but light waves, quantum waves and matter waves do not. (15) The modulation effect that waves must produce is not present in optical fiber communication. (16) If the light from different slits must interfere with each other, a mask full of slits will cause the lithographer to fail. (17) Since the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is only a sampling of the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not presented. (18) The fact that the two stars orbiting each other do not change color only proves that the phenomenon of redshift is impossible but does not support the inference that the speed of light is constant. (19) The Michelson-Morley test process is not open and transparent enough, and pinhole diffraction and mechanical processing using broken lines instead of curves cannot be ruled out. (20) Kepler's law can block Hubble's law and its derivatives, dark matter and dark energy. In conclusion, Newton's particle model was wrong, but neither was the light wave theory.
Abstract Light waves, which have almost no physical properties, are an abstract mathematical concept rather than an objective description. Confused by a set of dark and bright stripes and a sketchy schematic with little relation to the actual result, the double-slit phenomenon was misjudged as being caused by interfering light waves, but this plausible principle implies disastrous flaws. For example, (1) immediately after light passes through the double-slit device, the pattern is generated early or before interference. By changing the device-screen distance, the pattern only scales synchronously without being reconstructed by interference. The pattern with more interference points is darker, but it should be brighter. (2) Light waves can not only be subdivided into many parts but also greatly proliferate. (3) Light waves with missing leading edges outside the screen can still induce much interference. (4) Reflected light waves do not interfere. (5) The effect of polarization direction on interference should not be ignored. (6) Compared with the mathematical model, the location where the dark stripe should appear is actually the brightest spot. The formation principle of multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found. (7) To reflect the quantum property in the interference process, unless all conditions are simultaneously met, interference will not be triggered, and therefore, the principle of interference will be rejected. (8) A light source cannot be produced in a slit that may be in vacuum. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photons that have collapsed into particles should be tested again with a double-slit test. (10) The phenomenon of "observed tampering results" is obtained by observation. Has it been tampered with by observation? (11) If light is a wave, then matter and antimatter are conjoined. In conclusion, Newton's particle model is wrong, as is light wave theory.
3.1 Interference of a Single Photon The kinds of study originally conducted by Thomas Young - in particular, the celebrated "double slit" experiment that we briefly examined in Chapter 1 (see Fig. 1) - provide a capacity to reveal far more than the wave nature of light, important as that is. True enough, the observed characteristic fringe pattern, when monochromatic light passes through two closely spaced slits onto a screen, appears to be simply explicable on the basis of waves from each slit undergoing constructive and destructive interference at different positions on the screen. Yet, astonishingly, these patterns of interference are still exhibited when individual photons of a low-intensity input beam reach the screen one at a time, showing that it cannot in fact be a matter of different photons having to interfere with each other. Indeed, Dirac enunciated the general principle that photons can never directly interact with each other. The double slit and other such experiments indicate that each photon interacts in a delocalized, wave-like manner with both slits at the same time. Successive experiments build interference patterns that conform to an exact mathematical distribution formula, but the position at which an individual photon is detected in any particular instance cannot be predicted; this is a quintessential illustration of quantum uncertainty. Using the path integral approach of quantum theory, the phenomenon is more accurately represented by introducing a summation over all possible routes between the source and the screen on which the pattern appears, signifying an entire "lifetime" for each photon involved in the experiment. This relates to the fact that the actual trajectory is unknown without an observation, and thus we only obtain the probabilities of the photon striking the screen at different positions and times; all trajectories (potentialities) must be considered in a superposition. Each route is considered equally probable, and the variation in phase produces quantum interference. The differences in phase of each trajectory, at varying positions on the screen, generates the fringe pattern. An intriguing variation on this experiment involves "marking" the photons so that the actual route of each photon to the screen is known. Remarkably, in such a case, the fringe patterns do not appear because quantum interference cannot occur. A consequence of the observation of the photon route is an effect that, in other quantum mechanical connections, is known as a collapse of the wavefunction. However, it is possible for the fringe patterns to reappear when information on the route of the photons is lost; this is known as a quantum eraser.
All quantum physical phenomena are maximally closed. Thus, if a photon emitted by a source later is registered in a detector, it is not meaningful “to try to find out what might have happened to the photon on its travel from source to detector.” To find out means to make an experiment. Hence, if a new detector is placed somewhere on the photon route, one has a new phenomenon. In a double-slit experiment the wave interference disappears if one tries to determine which way the particle went. Such mutually exclusive (complementary) particle and wave experiments, represent in the words of Bohr [27], “a rational generalization of classical physics.” To obtain human knowledge of the photon we must make observations.