Interferometers and Superposition

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Dalo said:

 

Only Fig.1.3 and Fig.1.4 represent MZI's. The others are there to explain why the results given by the two MZI's are strange and need explanation. They build up the case as it were.

Where did the author say that they are not which-path devices?

That's the part where it said

"We have no way of knowing by which path it arrived, since two paths are possible. These two paths are therefore indistinguishable, and the effects of interference are present."  

which you quoted.

[Mordred]

I Don't know maybe some images will help supplement that article involving the identical setup.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2012/OPT_101/Quantum%20A%20Lab%20Presentation%202012-1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiS7Latv43YAhUQymMKHd5HBVcQFgglMAI&usg=AOvVaw0dUVAG7xt09bxQFIPtopFN

The explanation and subsequent questionare for the lab report including the "Which path"

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/homepage/lab_2_manual_oct_08.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjg8Yb4xI3YAhUHHGMKHfaeBWoQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw2ZLwtQ2oVoEevoTOyues5P

Hopefully this helps fill in some of the blanks from the reference you are having problems understanding.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That's the part where it said

"We have no way of knowing by which path it arrived, since two paths are possible. These two paths are therefore indistinguishable, and the effects of interference are present."  

which you quoted.

Then you have a very strange definition of which-path experiments. 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

I Don't know maybe some images will help supplement that article involving the identical setup.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2012/OPT_101/Quantum%20A%20Lab%20Presentation%202012-1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiS7Latv43YAhUQymMKHd5HBVcQFgglMAI&usg=AOvVaw0dUVAG7xt09bxQFIPtopFN

The explanation and subsequent questionare for the lab report including the "Which path"

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/homepage/lab_2_manual_oct_08.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjg8Yb4xI3YAhUHHGMKHfaeBWoQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw2ZLwtQ2oVoEevoTOyues5P

Hopefully this helps fill in some of the blanks from the reference you are having problems understanding.

please check p.21 of your first link and explain to me what the differences are between the setting shown there and the setting presented by Scariani.

Another one of his quotes:

"it is impossible for us
to know by which path the particle has traveled, without modifying
the result." p.15.

 

If somehow you have changed the subject to the particle-wave duality of light, which seems to be the aim of the first link, then it is an illegal move on your part. It probably does not make any difference since in last instance the problems look very much alike, but that is certainly not the subject of this thread.

I can only conclude that you are unwilling to address my claim and are bringing extraneous elements into the discussion in the hope of confusing the issue.

It is more than obvious that your interpretation of Scariani, backed by none other than Alain Aspect, is erroneous. Once again read the 15 first pages of the book.

The first lines of the second link read:

"Light, as we know it, can behave like particles or like waves under different physical conditions.
This is what is called the wave-particle duality of light. The particle nature of light is explained
by considering light as massless energetic particles called photons."

Talking about straw-man argument.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

Umm its not changing the topic, all three articles are literally the same lab assignment done through three different education institutions. They are precisely the same lab assignments.

Please clarify why you see a difference in the two interpretations between Scariana and page 21. Is it that you don't know the Superposition of momochromatic light  with regards to the seperation via the beam splitter?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

Umm its not changing the topic, all three articles are literally the same lab assignment done through three different education institutions. They are precisely the same lab assignments.

 

But they are not the subject of this tread. Face my claim or let it rest. You are wasting both our time.

[Mordred]

And your not wasting ours. What was the Bold part in your OP. Shall I quote it for you?

22 hours ago, Dalo said:

 

My claim will be: there is no superposition and the particles never change their behavior.

 

 

 

Well ? there is an example in all three papers showing otherwise. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

And your not wasting ours. What was the Bold part in your OP. Shall I quote it for you?

please do. And explain at the same time what you have made of it. Apparently your interpretation is quite different from what I have chosen as subject of this thread.

[Mordred]

No I'm done wasting my time with your finger in ear attitude. I have better things to do. Chances are this thread will end up getting locked as well

[Dalo]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

And your not wasting ours. What was the Bold part in your OP. Shall I quote it for you?

 

That is exactly my claim, and I have defended it. You have not brought a single argument against it.

The results of my analysis, considering my claim:

- Particles take each time, and whatever  the setting, one path and one path only.

- there is therefore no superposition of the particles.

- the reason why is that there is always an external force present, the length of the difference between the paths in one case (Scariani), the polarization filter in the second case (the pdf file)

- You were talking about Bell's theorem, well, here are two perfect examples of not so hidden variables that could account for the results.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

Denial isn't a defense you utterly refuse any actual physics that isn't a defense of a physics argument.

Would you like the formula for monochromatic light and how a beam splitter works under the math? We have tried every other technique to show your errors.

I have not mentioned Bells experiment in this thread. Not once.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

My claim will be: there is no superposition and the particles never change their behavior.

 

[Mordred]

Yes now you prove that with this experiment. I have stuck to this experiment itself and not once mentioned Bells.

That is your lack of reading comprehension once again.

[Dalo]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Denial isn't a defense you utterly refuse any actual physics that isn't a defense of a physics argument.

Would you like the formula for monochromatic light and how a beam splitter works under the math? We have tried every other technique to show your errors.

You blind reference to authority is certainly not an argument either. Show me where my defense of my claim has gone wrong instead of simply referring to what is now considered as the right interpretation. Science is a living enterprise and constantly changing. The most important changes in history did not come from better calculations but from different interpretations.

[Mordred]

Really then explain why no one else disagrees with us and everyone is trying to get you to comrehend what your reading?

All three links are the same lab experiment.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That is your lack of reading comprehension once again.

I wonder how I have gotten through university with high grades. It is nothing short of a miracle.

[Mordred]

So do I because I see absolutely no evidence here. Especially when you didn't even comprehend the high school lesson plan in the other thread. Nor recognize that the links in this thread are part of student lectures.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Really then explain why no one else disagrees with us and everyone is trying to get you to comrehend what your reading?

All three links are the same lab experiment.

My interpretation is unorthodox. That in itself does not make it wrong. You will have to prove it. And not only refer to the general opinion or the orthodox interpretation. That is not how a scientific debate works.

[Mordred]

No according to the forum rules if your interpretation is unorthodox it is your responsibility to prove it in a rigorous and testable manner. Which if you read those rules will most likely include the mathematics you don't believe in.

See the pinned threads in this forum.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

 

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

No according to the forum rules if your interpretation is unorthodox it is your responsibility to prove it in a rigorous and testable manner. Which if you read those rules will most likely include the mathematics you don't believe in.

See the pinned threads in this forum.

I have no idea where you got the idea from that I don't not believe in mathematics.

You are the one refusing to address my claim, hiding behind general opinion and orthodox interpretation. Apparently, it is not a matter of defending an unorthodox claim, which I have been doing all along. No, as far as you are concerned, any unorthodox claim is a wrong claim and should therefore be rejected without hesitation or analysis.

[Mordred]

So why have you refu

29 minutes ago, Dalo said:

. Science is a living enterprise and constantly changing. The most important changes in history did not come from better calculations 

Statements like this, and your refusal to even understand the math involved in previous threads. Nor accepting of any papers and references of any theory that disagrees with you. Both here and in your previously locked threads.

What I call the finger in the ears approach. A good physicists studies All bodies of evidence under all math treatments before drawing conclusions.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

Just now, Mordred said:

So why have you refu

Statements like this, and your refusal to even understand the math involved in previous threads. Nor accepting of any papers and references of any theory that disagrees with you. Both here and in your previously locked threads.

I am afraid this is a very simplistic view of science. Mathematics are an indispensable tool. We still need the scientists to think about how to use them.

[Mordred]

No it isn't simplistic. It involves developing predictive models of measurable effects. Nothing simplistic about it. Science is pointless without being able to make predictive models.

Maybe you should stick to metaphysics and not physics

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

13 minutes ago, Dalo said:

Mathematics are an indispensable tool.

 

[Mordred]

Great so you agree then start showing the math involved for these experiments and not misinterpretated quotes and pictures.

If you like some some help I will post a classical methodology to describe monochromatic light. Lets start there before we apply Snells law of refraction to the beam splitter.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Great so you agree then start showing the math involved for these experiments and not misinterpretated quotes and pictures.

If you like some some help I will post a classical methodology to describe monochromatic light. Lets start there before we apply Snells law of refraction to the beam splitter.

I am overwhelmed by your generosity. Would you be so kind as to answer my claim too with something else but generalities? 

I think your strategy is obvious. Keeping a meaningless discussion going as long as possible, to have the thread finally closed. 

This is my last reaction to anything you say that does not specifically concern the subject of the thread and the claim I have presented.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Dalo