Light interference : when can we observe it? Part II

This paper presents the 2013 double-slit experiment "Particle Solution to the Double Slit Experiment" (University of Arizona), together with a more rigorous 2026 reconstruction of the same test. Part I reproduces the original study verbatim. A slit was cut at a dark fringe on Screen 1 and the light was measured on Screen 2 behind it. The detector current behind the dark fringe was 1.4 mA, equal to the 1.4 mA laser-off noise. The result was interpreted as supporting the particle view. Part II specifies a high-precision modular protocol designed to discriminate between dark-fringe occupancy and interference: a common baseline (Module 0), the Screen-1 dark-fringe profile (A), an aperture-width series (B), Screen-2 profiles behind dark and bright apertures (C), an offset scan (D), and a closure map (E). The standard optical-field prediction is frozen before acquisition. If no light is observed on Screen 2 behind the dark-fringe aperture while the bright control transmits, the particle view is supported. If two fringes appear, matching the frozen template, the wave view is supported. Status: Part I includes the original 2013 detector readings. Part II is a prospective protocol; no data have been acquired under it. Files: manuscript (PDF), LaTeX source, supplementary forward model (double_slit_field_model.py), and example configuration (asbuilt_example.json), which reproduces the illustrative values in Section II.12.This paper presents the 2013 double-slit experiment "Particle Solution to the Double Slit Experiment" (University of Arizona), together with a more rigorous 2026 reconstruction of the same test. Part I reproduces the original study verbatim. A slit was cut at a dark fringe on Screen 1 and the light was measured on Screen 2 behind it. The detector current behind the dark fringe was 1.4 mA, equal to the 1.4 mA laser-off noise. The result was interpreted as supporting the particle view. Part II specifies a high-precision modular protocol designed to discriminate between dark-fringe occupancy and interference: a common baseline (Module 0), the Screen-1 dark-fringe profile (A), an aperture-width series (B), Screen-2 profiles behind dark and bright apertures (C), an offset scan (D), and a closure map (E). The standard optical-field prediction is frozen before acquisition. If no light is observed on Screen 2 behind the dark-fringe aperture while the bright control transmits, the particle view is supported. If two fringes appear, matching the frozen template, the wave view is supported. Status: Part I includes the original 2013 detector readings. Part II is a prospective protocol; no data have been acquired under it. Files: manuscript (PDF), LaTeX source, supplementary forward model (double_slit_field_model.py), and example configuration (asbuilt_example.json), which reproduces the illustrative values in Section II.12.

Oct 3, 20260 citations

Double slit interference: Part I

Richard Joseph Oldani

Feynman referred to interference as “the only mystery,” and we continue to pursue that idea here by examining the theory behind it with heightened scrutiny. Three interpretations are described: The standard model, Feynman’s sum-over-paths, and Einstein’s photon model. The standard model bases its arguments on the wave function and its subsequent collapse. The sum-over-paths model is equivalent to the standard model, but it explains interference by avoiding use of the wave function and its conceptual problems due to collapse. The Einstein model is the most challenging for it is revolutionary and intuitively demanding. We critique the three models by studying their treatment of polarized light. In Part II, the interference of low intensity light will be discussed.Feynman referred to interference as “the only mystery,” and we continue to pursue that idea here by examining the theory behind it with heightened scrutiny. Three interpretations are described: The standard model, Feynman’s sum-over-paths, and Einstein’s photon model. The standard model bases its arguments on the wave function and its subsequent collapse. The sum-over-paths model is equivalent to the standard model, but it explains interference by avoiding use of the wave function and its conceptual problems due to collapse. The Einstein model is the most challenging for it is revolutionary and intuitively demanding. We critique the three models by studying their treatment of polarized light. In Part II, the interference of low intensity light will be discussed.

Physics EssaysMar 13, 20230 citations

Photons and Interference

Pieter Kok

Undergraduate lecture notes in physicsJan 1, 20180 citations

Photons and Interference

Pieter Kok

Undergraduate lecture notes in physicsJan 1, 20230 citations

Interference of Fine-Structure Levels of He ii

William S. Bickel, STANLEY BASHKIN

Passage of a beam of foil-excited ${\mathrm{He}}^{+}$ ions through a small electric field induced quasiperiodic fluctuations in the intensity of the light emitted from levels $n=7, 8, 9, \mathrm{and} 10$ . Both ${\mathrm{He}}^{3}$ and ${\mathrm{He}}^{4}$ beams were used. Only one foil was needed, in contrast to the double-foil arrangement reported necessary for hydrogen. The observations are discussed in terms of Stark-induced interference of the fine-structure levels of He ii, but discrepancies between the data and the calculations are large.Passage of a beam of foil-excited ${\mathrm{He}}^{+}$ ions through a small electric field induced quasiperiodic fluctuations in the intensity of the light emitted from levels $n=7, 8, 9, \mathrm{and} 10$. Both ${\mathrm{He}}^{3}$ and ${\mathrm{He}}^{4}$ beams were used. Only one foil was needed, in contrast to the double-foil arrangement reported necessary for hydrogen. The observations are discussed in terms of Stark-induced interference of the fine-structure levels of He ii, but discrepancies between the data and the calculations are large.

Physical ReviewOct 5, 196731 citations

Passage of a beam of foil-excited

{\mathrm{He}}^{+}

ions through a small electric field induced quasiperiodic fluctuations in the intensity of the light emitted from levels

n=7, 8, 9, \mathrm{and} 10

. Both

{\mathrm{He}}^{3}

and

{\mathrm{He}}^{4}

beams were used. Only one foil was needed, in contrast to the double-foil arrangement reported necessary for hydrogen. The observations are discussed in terms of Stark-induced interference of the fine-structure levels of He ii, but discrepancies between the data and the calculations are large.