slehar

Here is a perfect example of the spooky quantum wave/particle NONSENSE that pervades our scientific culture unchallenged, to which I vehement object. In the May 2007 Scientific American, Hillmer & Kwiat's article "A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser" Woah! I can just hear the weird spooky sci-fi background music! But first (to their credit) Hillmer & Kwiat warn: No kidding, Einstein! Ever consider the possibility that light is in fact a continuous analog wave phenomenon? and (I must add) mis-interpreting the discrete detection of that light as a detection of discrete particles flying through one by one, instead of the real situation which is a discrete detection of a continuum of waves of light by discrete electrons that pop between discrete energy levels, as would be expected of a standing wave resonance effect. Why does this kind of nonsense go unchallenged?

There is a time and place for shiny math. This is a simple straightforward argument that does not require math. Sometimes all that shiny math serves more to obsfucate than to elucidate, and this whole wave/particle duality nonsense is a perfect example. The explanation for the bucky balls is the same as the explanation for any other particle. If you observe interference between bucky balls passing through the twin slits, then bucky balls are obviously not the discrete ball-and-stick constructions you see in your text books, but rather, every carbon atom with its surrounding field of electron orbitals, is like an extended field-like wrinkle in the fabric of reality that extends outward in space and time, and when collections of these fuzzy extended structures clump together into a bucky ball, the ball is itself an extended field-like structure, every component atom of which appears more like the fuzzy standing wave functions of the electron orbitals than a ball-and-stick model, so as to pass through both slits at the same time. Otherwise it would not exhibit interference effects! There is a distinction between existential discreteness (there is either an electron in this orbital, or there is not; there is either an atom present here, or there is not; there is either a buckyball present, or there is not) and spatiotemporal discreteness (an electron / atom / buckyball is either a discrete point or ball-and-stick structure, or a fuzzy extended wave function). All I am saying is that evidence for existential discreteness is NOT evidence for spatiotemporal discreteness, it is merely a resonance effect. And the evidence for interference effects IS evidence for spatiotemporal extendedness and wave-like nature of electrons, atoms, and buckyballs. The mathematical prediction is that the phenomena that have already been observed should be expected to continue to be observed. The supporting evidence is all the evidence that has already been gathered. This is NOT an argument about new evidence for a new theory. This is an argument about the interpretation of existing evidence which is not in dispute. This is also how science works! The onus is on YOU to cite me any past evidence that you believe demonstrates that particles are ever discrete in space and time, rather than fuzzy wave functions, because all the evidence cited to date merely demonstrate a discreteness in emission and absorption, a resonance effect with the atom's electrons, which are known to be standing wave orbitals, not discrete particles. My principal objection is to that whole spooky cat-in-the-box notion of things existing in a fuzzy indeterminate state until mere observation mysteriously collapses the wave function, like popping a bubble with a pin. That is a highly misleading and erroneous explanation, because all of the existing evidence can be re-interpreted in very much simpler non-paradoxical terms, by saying that all particles, even buckyballs, are extended wave functions, and observation does not change them in any way, it merely subtracts a quantum of energy from the wave function when it is detected, which is an existentially discrete event (it either happens, or it doesn't), but neither of the participants of that event (the particle detected, and the elevating electron that does the detection) are discrete or point-like in any way, they are wave functions, because everything is wave functions! It is a simpler, more parsimonious, Occam-friendlier alternative explanation to account for the data, that does NOT resort to mysterious spooky collapses of wave functions just because someone (or something?) "observes" it.

Because lower frequencies cannot launch the electron up to the next discrete orbital level. Imagine a buoy shaped like a life-saver, threaded on a vertical pole in shallow water. As waves pass by, the life-saver floats up and down on its pole. If it slides without friction on the pole, then it subtracts no energy from the wave, which passes through undiminished. If you attach an electrical generator that generates electricity from the buoy's vertical travel, then exactly that same amount of energy is subtracted from the passing wave. Now imagine that the buoy has a discrete pop-up pop-down mechanism, like a light switch which resists a vertical force until it exceeds a certain threshold, then snaps abruptly up or down. At the moment the buoy snaps up or down, it will immediately subtract one quantum of energy from the passing wave, equal to the energy required to perform the snap. The frequency dependence is due to the fact that electron absorption is a resonance effect, it has to resonate at the right frequency in order to be absorbed. Because lower frequencies cannot launch the electron up to the next discrete orbital level. Imagine a buoy shaped like a life-saver, threaded on a vertical pole in shallow water. As waves pass by, the life-saver floats up and down on its pole. If it slides without friction on the pole, then it subtracts no energy from the wave, which passes through undiminished. If you attach an electrical generator that generates electricity from the buoy's vertical travel, then exactly that same amount of energy is subtracted from the passing wave. Now imagine that the buoy has a discrete pop-up pop-down mechanism, like a light switch which resists a vertical force until it exceeds a certain threshold, then snaps abruptly up or down. At the moment the buoy snaps up or down, it will immediately subtract one quantum of energy from the passing wave, equal to the energy required to perform the snap. The frequency dependence is due to the fact that electron absorption is a resonance effect, it has to resonate at the right frequency in order to be absorbed. I am not proposing new evidence to support a new theory. I am proposing a new (not really, others have proposed this before and also been ignored) explanation to account for the same old data. No it is not! The only way we know about the intensity of emitted light is by our recordings of that light on the detector. When you reduce the level low enough, then the detector detects either very few, or no hits. The "classical" explanation is that individual photons are emitted one by one. But this is an artifact of our discrete detector. The actual explanation is that most of the analog radiation remains below threshold, and only occasionally do enough crests align by constructive interference to trigger the detector. Because if there were indeed individual photons that pass through the slits one by one, then how on earth would they ever interfere? The "classical" explanation is paradoxical, it does not make sense. What do you want explained? I'll explain it!

When an electron drops to a lower orbital, it releases one quantum of electromagnetic energy that spreads outward from that source, spreading out and becoming more diffuse by the inverse-square law. It cannot break into discrete photons, because it started off as one quantum to begin with. That is why the whole notion of photons as discrete particles is nonsense. When many electrons drop to lower orbitals, they each release one quantum that disperses outward in overlapping superimposed waves. When enough of these analog waves happen to add together to exactly one quantum at some point, an electron at that point can absorb that one quantum and rise to a higher orbital, and thereby subtract that one quantum from the analog field. The so-called "collapse of the wave function" is nothing other than the wave being absorbed by an electron rising to the next energy level, which is a discrete phenomenon that either occurs entirely, or does not occur at all. Only a part of the analog wave collapses in this manner, that is, one quantum of energy is subtracted from it by the absorbing electron. But the rest of the wave remains analog and continues through undisturbed. The whole wave/particle duality is an artifact of the discrete nature of absorption and emission. There never was, nor never will be, a single "photon" traveling like a discrete wavelet, because like all electromagnetic energy, the "photon" would spread out as it travels, eventually spreading to a tiny fraction of the original quantum released from the source on emission. Give me ONE example of where thinking of photons as discrete particles offers a better explanation than the wave explanation (with discrete quantized emission and absorption, due to the quantal nature of the standing waves of the electron orbitals) The twin slits experiment is just made spooky and mysterious and paradoxical when you think of single photons interfering when passing through the slits one by one. The situation becomes perfectly intuitively clear when you abandon that nonsense explanation and say that light travels as analog waves which (of course) interfere while passing through the slits, but they only get absorbed in discrete quanta when enough of them add up constructively at the detector and boost an electron up a level. There are weird spooky paradoxical single-photon explanations for phenomena which can be explained very simply and intuitively using a continuous wave explanation.

No, there is NO experimental evidence supporting light travelling as discrete photons, there is ONLY evidence for light being emmitted and absorbed in discrete quanta, because emmission and absorption are discrete phenomena due to the discrete nature of the standing waves of electron orbitals.

There is no wave / particle duality, everything is analog continuous waves, and they only appear discrete due to certain resonance effects. For example in the twin slits experiment, there never are individual photons passing through the slits one by one, there are just analog continuous waves that (of course) interfere with each other through the slits. The apparently discrete nature of the measurement is due only to the fact that photons are detected by absorption by an electron (whether in a photocell, photosensitive emulsion, or photopigment in the retina) and electrons are only absorbed at discrete levels that match the energy difference to the higher level orbital to which the electron is boosted, and this absorption absorbs and thus subtracts exactly one quantum from the analog field of light. Light emission is discrete, due to the discrete jump of an electron to a lower level orbital, and light absorption is discrete, due to the discrete jump back up to higher level. But light travels not in discrete photons, but in continous analog waves that disperse outward continuously attenuated constantly by the inverse square law. There is no wave / particle duality. It is all analog continuous waves, and some discrete resonance effects of those analog continuous waves.