Interferometers and Superposition

[Mordred]

We have been trying all along using the simplist possible references we could find. Hence the student lectures. Which you continously demonstrated not understanding. 

Roflmao you really don't want to see the Beam splitter Unitary matrix for a lossless 50-50 beam splitter  for transmition and reflective waves. None of these links particularly include this detail.

You must understand wave-particle duality itself to do so. Which is precisely what this experiment and the links in this thread is telling you.

In some regards Young's two slit may be a better stepping stone.

 You asked at one time how a particle can simultaneously go through two slits, well obviously a "bullet particle" cannot.  A waveform however can easily do so. 

Wave particle duality specifically states " A particle will exhibit " wave-like and "point-like" characteristics. This is different than stating "particle and wave:" It may seem the same but under examination it isn't. The pointlike is defined by a wavefunction. (De-Broglie) hence the importance of constructive and destructive interference with regards to the 2 slit. Superposition itself is a probablistic (Stochastic) treatment. However with waveforms and such fundamentals such as harmonics this treatment only makes sense when dealing with waveforms. That is what these articles are trying to tell you.

Here is a quote directly from your link.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Mordred]

22 hours ago, Dalo said:

Well, I suggest you get a copy of Scarani's 

getliffe_lab_2_final.pdf

 

"the implication of  single photon interference is that as experimenters we can only think of photons as  particles when they arrive at specific points of interaction.  As long as no measurement has been  performed, light behaves as a wave, even at single photon intensity levels.  In the Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment, this fact can also  be clearly observed"

Once you identify the "Which path" you collapse the probability wavefunction. You have located the pointlike "De-Broglie" wavefunction from the Superposition wavefunction. Two distinctive waveforms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

Here is a couple of key passages from that link.

"This was a pivotal result in the development of quantum mechanics. Just as the photoelectric effect demonstrated the particle nature of light, the Davisson–Germer experiment showed the wave-nature of matter, and completed the theory of wave–particle duality. For physicists this idea was important because it meant that not only could any particle exhibit wave characteristics, but that one could use wave equations to describe phenomena in matter if one used the de Broglie wavelength" 

Further down on the same link it shows that even atoms involve the De-Broglie waveforms. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

It is not about the wave-particle duality, reread the first post.

First you thought it was about electronic gates, and now you think it is about wave-particle duality. Maybe you shouldn't work so hard, and go to bed early.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

I'm trying to help you understand why superposition itself is involved. Hence needing to be clear about wave particle duality. The two are related.

Doesn't the term interference not suggest wavefunction collapse to you?

Or doesn't the difference between a probability wavefunction and a measured wavefunction not suggest two different wavefunction?

Because quite frankly it is that simple to the distinction between "which path information" the information of the wavefunction given the "Specific  type of wavefunction.

In simplist possible descriptive.

A determined wave function as opposed to a probablist wavefunction. Simple

When you measure particles you measure interference patterns. Am I going too fast for you? 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I'm trying to help you understand why superposition itself is involved. Hence needing to be clear about wave particle duality. The two are related.

Doesn't the term interference not suggest wavefunction collapse to you?

Or doesn't the difference between a probability wavefunction and a measured wavefunction not suggest two different wavefunction?

 

If you had read Scariani, you would know that his book is not about wave-particle duality. Please stop trying to change the subject of my thread. I agree that both subjects are very closely related, but that does not mean that they are the same.

I have first treated of double slit experiments exclusively and you were the one that kept hammering on the necessity of also treating MZi's. I have put my claim forward and made it abundantly clear that it was not incompatible with the wave-particle theory of light.

The same holds for this thread. My claim is also not incompatible with the wave theory of light. If You made the effort of reading my posts you would see it immediately.

here is a quote from my other thread:

"I have claimed that this disappearance is a mere theoretical phenomenon, based on the belief that it is the only sensible explanation when one takes into account the dual nature, or at least the wave-theory of light.
I would like to make it clear that my claim is not incompatible with this theory. The interference patterns may well be the result of constructive and destructive interference of particles moving together through the slits. They may even be the result of single particle interference.
What is essential is the reason why they seem to disappear when "observed".

 

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Dalo

[Mordred]

Yeesh didn't I explain how De-Broglie is involved in that quote ? It is literally involved to understand that passage.

Man oh man 

Do you not understand the term Superposition?

Once you determine a state there is no longer a superposition state. It is a determined state. Is that plain enough?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[Dalo]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yeesh didn't I explain how De-Broglie is involved in that quote ? It is literally involved to understand that passage.

Man oh man 

Do you not understand the term Superposition?

Once you determine a state there is no longer a superposition state. It is a determined state. Is that plain enough?

It is you who do not understand what the whole thread is about. I show that it is not necessary to assume superposition of particles.

That is what you should concentrate on. Show that I am wrong in my claim. Show that my claim is wrong, instead of playing teacher.

[Mordred]

The reason for superposition is to make predictions of all Possible outcomes.

It is what makes the model Robust. It is simply a mathematical (Statistical technique) which I was very clear in stating.

That statistical method is also REQUIRED because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle itself. You cannot with absolute certainty know the position and momentum of a particle. Hence using statistics. (Which I did state before in your other locked thread) Even under Bohmian this is true as the equations included this statistical nature.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Dalo said:

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

Distinguishable paths is the very definition of a which-path experiment. If they are indistinguishable, then it is not a which-path experiment. That really shouldn't be tough to figure out.

 

 

8 hours ago, Dalo said:

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)

Path length is not a force. Polarization is not a force. You're just making stuff up, and have no physics to support these claims.

[Dalo]

This is the part I used of Scarani's book.

scarani 23-30.pdf

[swansont]

On 12/16/2017 at 5:35 AM, Dalo said:

 That is what you should concentrate on. Show that I am wrong in my claim. Show that my claim is wrong, instead of playing teacher.

You have this backwards. The burden of proof is upon you to support your claims, if you are going to claim something contrary to accepted physics. And you are going to be corrected, or rebutted, as appropriate.