When a quantum system is described by a wave function consisting in a couple of wave-packets, each wave packet traveling on a separate path, a commonly asked question is why at a given time only one of the wave packets is able to trigger a click in a detector. In the second half of the last century many scientists considered the possibility that not all these wave-packets are identical. Namely, that there exist full waves and empty waves. The two types of waves were supposed to be identical in all the experiments, e.g. able to produce interference when meeting, however, the full wave was supposed to be able to trigger a detector, while the empty wave was supposed to leave the detector silent. The present text describes an experiment which, for explaining the results, seems to beg the hypothesis of full and empty waves.
When a quantum system is described by a wave function consisting in a couple of wave-packets, each wave packet traveling on a separate path, a commonly asked question is why at a given time only one of the wave packets is able to trigger a click in a detector. In the second half of the last century many scientists considered the possibility that not all these wave-packets are identical. Namely, that there exist full waves and empty waves. The two types of waves were supposed to be identical in all the experiments, e.g. able to produce interference when meeting, however, the full wave was supposed to be able to trigger a detector, while the empty wave was supposed to leave the detector silent. The present text describes an experiment which, for explaining the results, seems to beg the hypothesis of full and empty waves.
When a quantum system is described by a wave function consisting in a couple of wave-packets, each wave packet traveling on a separate path, a commonly asked question is why at a given time only one of the wave packets is able to trigger a click in a detector. In the second half of the last century many scientists considered the possibility that not all these wave-packets are identical. Namely, that there exist full waves and empty waves. The two types of waves were supposed to be identical in all the experiments, e.g. able to produce interference when meeting, however, the full wave was supposed to be able to trigger a detector, while the empty wave was supposed to leave the detector silent. The present text describes an experiment which, for explaining the results, seems to beg the hypothesis of full and empty waves.
When a quantum system is described by a superposition of wave-packets, each wave-packet traveling on a separate path, a commonly asked question is why only one of the wave-packets is able to trigger a click in a detector. In the second half of the last century many scientists considered the possibility that not all these wave-packets are identical. Namely, that there exist “full waves” and “empty waves”. The two types of waves were supposed to be identical only in the sense that they are able to produce interference when crossing one another, however, the full wave was supposed to be able to trigger a click in a detector, while the empty wave was supposed to leave the detector silent. The present text describes an experiment in which, for explaining the results, it seems necessary to admit the existence of full and empty waves.
When a quantum object -- a particle as we call it in a non-rigorous way -- is described by a multi-branched wave- function, with the corresponding wave-packets occupying separated regions of the time-space, a frequently asked question is whether the quantum object is actually contained in only one of these wave-packets. If the answer is positive, then the other wave-packets are called in literature empty waves. The wave-packet containing the object is called a full wave, and is the only one that would produce a recording in a detector. A question immediately arising is whether the empty waves may also have an observable effect. Different works were dedicated to the elucidation of this question. None of them proved that the hypothesis of full/empty waves is correct - it may be that the Nature is indeed non-deterministic and the quantum object is not confined to one region of the space-time. All the works that proved that the empty waves have an effect, in fact, proved that if there exist full and empty waves, then the latter may have an observable effect. This is also the purpose and the limitation of the present work. What is shown here is that if the hypothesis is true, the empty waves have an influence. An experiment is indicated which reveals this influence. The analysis of the experiment is according to the quantum formalism. This experiment has the advantage of being more intuitive and practically more feasible than a previous proposal also in agreement with the quantum formalism. However, the presently proposed experiment also shows that the quantum theory is not in favor of the above hypothesis.
The operations of many detection devices are usually explained in terms of the ionization tracks produced by classical charged particles. A wave-mechanical analysis does not seem to be available. Mott [Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 126, 79 (1929)] has shown that an incident \ensuremath{\alpha} wave emitted by a radioactive nucleus would be scattered by atoms primarily in directions almost forward. However, these scattered waves would appear over the entire sensitive region of the detector. The mechanism that produces a collapse of the wave function to a single track is analyzed here. The incident \ensuremath{\alpha} wave is written as a superposition of minimum-sized packets. Since it is linear, the Schr\"odinger equation for the system including an observer can be solved for each packet individually. After the minimum packets interact with the electrons in the detector, they cannot be recombined to form a plane wave. However, they can be combined in groups to form larger coherent packets interacting with the detector to form tracks. The size and shape of each coherent packet is determined by the properties of the medium that is ionized to produce its track. The track from each packet is seen by the observer and is associated with a state of his memory, recording only one track. Each such packet replaces the particle in the usual explanation. These are the packets required to predict the quantum jumps seen in the scattering of laser light from an isolated atom as I have discussed [Phys. Rev. A 45, 4925 (1992)]. The relation of the probability distribution of these tracks to the wave function is explained.
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!
Science, as it is generally described at school, starts with experimental data. Scientists then have to find some hypothesis which explains these results. Using this hypothesis, a prediction is made about what might happen in a slightly different experiment. The double-slit experiment is a modified version of the setup first used by Thomas Young in 1801. Young’s version is a classic experiment that, at the time, seemed to have settled the dispute between wave and particle views of light decisively in favour of waves. The idea that particles might display some wavelike properties dates to the mid-1920s when a young PhD student called Louis De Broglie was thinking about the dual wave/particle nature of light. A quantum mechanical description of the double-slit experiment must involve a set of amplitudes governing the passage of an electron through the slits to the far detector.