Mordred

Your drawings include Gate symbols common to electronic circuitry. http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Projects/CAL/digital-logic/gatesfunc/

Your using gates which only allow certain polarity states to pass through. Your already removing the other polarities involved for photons. Secondly a gate has a limit on its switching timing. Google an AND gate for TTL devices average switch delay 3 ns. per transistor involved in the gate.

No it isn't a single photon isn't light. A light is a frequency of multiple particles.

So you feel superposition of waves don't exist? Tell me have you ever worked with music or even an antenna ? We really need to find some common here. After all Superposition has a huge range of everyday applications. (music, radios, electronic signals, wireless transmition,) example carrier wave, with other frequencies riding said carrier wave which is involved in two way radios. Reflective waves in an antenna which reduced its wattage. MRA scanners. XRay machines Harmonics in electrical circuits 3 phase power the list goes on

Then defend why you have done so and refuse to accept anything related to the actual physics

And the point like everything else in physics has a mathematical descriptive which is also a wave.

Read the material my support is there as stated before I deal with physics and teaching it. Doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe in. I don't do useless metaphysics or disbelief arguments. ( a good metaphysics argument I have yet to see from this thread) good visual aid here the reference for how this works with constructive/destructive interference. You won't accept this either.... https://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/exam-prep/physical-optics/interference-diffraction/8_02_spring_2007_ch14_inter_diffr.pdf

What do you define as empirical. Hold your hand out so you can touch it? We have provided numerous experimental evidence for you to examine. Secondly it is your obligation to provide the evidence to support your argument under the rules of the Speculation forum

Sure under QFT, when waves constructive interfere the amplitude of the wave increases. This is described by the creation and annihilation operators. In other words new photons get created by these increases. Old ones not in phase with each other via the sum over Histories under Bohm and QFT annihilate. That simple enough? Its all in the math above.... So far we have shot down your arguments due to lack of understanding them on your part. Care to go over the material I provided and make a more informed decision or argument ?

Well thus far I have shown you don't understand the theories your supporting. I provided you what you need to learn to fix this lack. What you believe or don't believe isn't what I spend my time on forums dealing with. You keep thinking of particles as bullet like objects by that last descriptive. A wave can do precisely that Travel through two slits at one time.

That's been done as empirically as possible. Your refusal to accept all the references provided isn't my problem.

How can you make claims without even understanding the theories your quoting in your defenses? Isn't your argument itself theoretical?

I am asking you to truly understand what is involved and supplying this material to assist you in such an enterprise. Remember one of the rules on any wave-function. Probabilistic or not, measuring causes interference due to needing to interact via other waveforms (wave functions). A probabilistic wave-function is not a physical wave-function ( there is a distinct difference, example correlation functions). With the Heisenberg we involve both, but not only of the particle locality region but also any field coordinates. The problem with Copenhagen an QM is more specifically the position operator itself. In QFT this is downgraded to a propagator and the field is upgraded to Operator. Significant difference I mentioned this numerous times, most metaphysics papers rarely examine the math fully. I'll have to remember this line from 5.2 with regards to QM its nicely put in a very succinct manner. "One of the main arguments of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it is meaningless to ask about the position of a particle when it is not being detected. This means that if the trajectory of the particle is not being continually tracked, no information other than the start and end points of the trajectory can be known." section 5.2 Definitely applies to QFT methodology the QFT Hamilton primarily concerns itself with the end points via Principle of least action. Anyways its a good reference to help understand properly the physics and not the metaphysics arguments. .

Yes but isn't it reassuring to see certain Bowmian lessons already being applied under QFT ? though with more rigor under treatment

Based on which arguments, those of older Niave understandings ? This is the problem with trying to understand physics topics via metaphysics. I mentioned before most of the arguments aren't examining the actual mathematics. hence they are more often flawed simply on that basis in my opinion. Lets look at both, here is a decent paper though more my pay grade. https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/theoreticalphysics/Public/MSc/Dissertations/2009/Ellen Kite Dissertation.pdf Now it has an interesting statement with regards to the Copenhagen interpretation. "the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohm calls it the “usual interpretation”) centres on Heisenberg‟s uncertainty principle and the assumption that the physical state of a system can be most completely specified by a wavefunction. Only probability densities can be calculated and the probability description is inherent in matter." see section 3.4 which will refer you back to section 2 but the quoted section is from 3.4. well so does QFT. Under QFT an uncharged field is spin zero. So what does that do to your reassurance now?

Of course they relate. These devices repeat the older experiments. Your arguments have been based on older and out of date understandings. Time to get modern, time to actually understand what Bohmian theory is really about under the math because it actually involved a spin zero field. Thats the third component. Let me get you a proper paper on Bohmian pilot wave.

Yeah all the datasheets are behind paywalls or AAAS membership. You used to be able to get the Spec pdfs on its earlier devices. Anyways there are numerous papers using these devices particularly for quantum encryption applications. As I mentioned before older articles and metaphysics arguments don't really apply in modern understanding. The metaphysics arguments on Bohm is one such example. Lol if you study the math itself the pilot is a wave. Its descriptive of a particle is the Debroglie wavelength. Most of the formulas used by Pilot wave are also used in QFT. You really have to examine the mathematics to even find any differences in the treatment. Though comparing Pilotwave to QM it is a different case altogether. A rough general description 1) start with particle entanglement diodes with a RC circuit to regulate the rate of production. 2) use Logic gates to seperate the entangled pairs 3) pass each single photon through slits 4) count the hits at specific locations on the quantum detection silicon wafers (quantum detectors We weren't interested in preserving the entangled states themselves hence the seperation methodology. (student project low budget lol) Here is a listing of applications for the single quantum dot detectors. http://www.singlequantum.com/publications/ Here is a Toshiba room temperature test of the QKD detector. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1586&ved=0ahUKEwiRyJb1wIjYAhVP5WMKHfm6Bx0QFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw0xLkyJWINRaMj2LfM-Ou3E Here is some details involving the quantum entanglement emitter and some of its applications. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.08823&ved=0ahUKEwjuyoz-wYjYAhVB82MKHeajCCwQFggoMAA&usg=AOvVaw0n8x6XWO31roN5bCPz7nu7 lol the last link is a bit of an eye opener on some of the properties of light. The last link also describes the Einstein Podolski Rosen Bohm experiment. see figure 11. Prior to that "This is an optical variant of Bohm’s version of the EPR:

The experiment has been done by others as well. These experiments were far more accurately done than my own. (that and it included a student body, where I assist at on occassions as my work time allows) However here is an example setup. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.02962&ved=0ahUKEwirtOK-sojYAhVM2WMKHXLdB5kQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw0YryFuM4IZJkBZ3maQC8Wv this link directly uses the Toshiba devices https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3475&ved=0ahUKEwirtOK-sojYAhVM2WMKHXLdB5kQFggdMAA&usg=AOvVaw0g9rlEJ0bJ4hs-jlUQfSyg Trying to get the datasheets specifically on the detector and emitters but Toshiba changed its website.

Yes via Toshiba quantum single dot emitters and detectors. I did this experiment with those devices.

Like I stated I only deal with observed evidence, and the mathematics and physics. Metaphysics bores me. Far too often it is used as a wall that prevents even understanding the topic being discussed. Good example is the mathematical definition of Observer itself under Pilot wave theory. Do you know the mathematical definition? Have you bothered to even study the mathematics of De-Broglie Pilot wave which is Bohmian to even understand the theory itself? If you did you wouldn't be presenting the arguments you have thus far posted.

You must have been reading an ADS/CFT correspondance paper. Yeah it will make your head explode if you don't understand what is meant by dimensions under math ( independent variables). Unfortunately there is no real idiots guide to properly explain it.

yes like two sine waves both simulatneous.

Ok lets describe my view point, I don't follow the metaphysics debates. I focus on what is going on under the math. Under what the models truly state under the math. I rarely see any metaphysics paper truly address what the math shows. Here is a key detail QM and QFT operators are not the same. In QFT the fields are the operators. Changes a lot of the arguments or should.

Yes I recall some of those papers, some are still around today (though very little compared to 10 years back.) least from when I was interested in it. Here is the thing its mathematics also use Operators which which models the observable interactions. ( Don't trust pop media descriptives) Lol little secret it doesn't matter where a math treatment originates, some methodologies often get incorporated into other theories. This includes lessons from pilot wave

If you want emphirical fact simply look at "action under QFT. You cannot transmit less than a quanta of action. In order to have information exchange via interaction object to detector you require action. Name one detection device whether biological or otherwise that doesn't follow this rule. If all particles are field excitations then under the modern mathematics (including all Feyman diagrams) Action requires a quanta under Compton wavelengths for timelike interactions (massless particle interactions) Debroglie wavelength (massive particle interactions) spacelike. As they are waveforms described by wavefunctions they have a wavelength connected to its field. (Particle itself is a misnomer term we keep more for historical reasons) then they follow the laws of physics (classical and quantum) with all regards to wavelengths. IF you want a particular Path integral following any of the common interactions (including those related to " Observable as defined under math all primary terms in physics have a mathematical definition.