Originally Posted By: Bill 6

That's what I SAID!

A single photon can have only one trajectory at a given instant not hundreds of trajectories.

If a single photon is directed towards one such slit you cannot then have hundreds of identical photons emerging from both slits.


Then you missed the point because it is showing hundreds of photon tracks.

Thats the point of the analagy so if you use copenhagen the particle just divided hundreds of times not quite sure how?

The only other way to contrive an answer is say each time it took different paths but then you wouldnt see lines but a single line because remember 1 photon many many seconds apart??????

They are the only two ways to view the result and neither really works well the second particually because thats not what we see.

Is that clearer .. you may need to read the whole paper the events are quite some time apart they are tracking the diffraction pattern.

It's quite impossible a single photon could produce the interference pattern unless you allow the photon to split in hundreds.

And there in lies the problem.

The single photon became many or the light used its wave nature to interfere through the slits

Both explaination now face problems with different parts of the observation.

The wave explaination has problem in that we can track particles on each and every trajectory. What you are seeing is a classic bohemian tracking

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/figure1.gif

Which was not supposed to happen remember this was all supposed to be settled.

The particle explaination has problem with why and how did it split.


Sorry english is not my native language so I may ask Bill or Bill.S to explain if you still don't get it.


There are a few Bohenian nutter's come back out the woodwork with the result I am expecting that but really both explainations are equally flawed.


As I said many on the modern QM groups where not suprised most had already considered Copenhagen dead based on other current work.

Last edited by Orac; 06/15/11 12:29 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.