The Double Slit Experiment
I will solve the two biggest problems here: the problem of the single photon and the problem of the detector. In the first problem, we let photons go through the experiment one at a time. Using the photon-as-particle theory that Einstein proved and Feynman confirmed, we expect no wave interference, since the photon must go through one slit or the other. But we see interference. The single photon seems to be interfering with itself in some strange way. Up till now, there have been several proposed solutions. Wikipedia lists the most important. The first they mention is that the “wave front” of the photon goes through both slits and interferes with itself. Since the wave front is still not defined mechanically, this solution is not very compelling. The wave front is and always has been defined using Huygen’s visualization. The wave is seen as a semi-circular forward transmission from every point on a line of moving photons. With a single photon, this would be a semi-circle in front of the photon. But we are never told how far this semi-circle extends, what it is composed of, or how it acts upon the field. So we will let this explanation pass as wholly unsatisfactory. Another solution is to define the photon as a probability. A discrete particle cannot go through both slits at once, but a particle as probability can (as long as we define probabilities in certain ways). The third and currently accepted explanation is an extension of this second one. Feynman proposed that the photon-as-probability traveled Now, admittedly this is a clever mathematical solution. Feynman was a master of clever mathematical solutions, and this is one of his best. Mathematically it works. But it is not a physical or mechanical solution. It is a mathematical solution. Feynman was not so much a physicist as he was a mathematician that had invaded the physics department (the same could be said of most modern physicists). In his own way, Feynman admitted this. He did not admit to being an invader, but he admitted that his solution was only mathematical. He knew as well as anyone that it wasn’t physical, by the old definition of physics. He got around this by claiming that new physics was and must be mathematical only, since there was no possible mechanical solution. He was wrong, as I will prove very quickly. His math works precisely because there is a physical reality underlying his probabilities. Probabilities are not the What foundational field of numbers is creating the probabilities in this experiment? The answer is: the foundational E/M field. In every analysis of this problem and this experiment to date, the analysts have over-simplified the problem. They have assumed, without even putting the assumption into words, that the experiment is taking place in a sort of void or vacuum. The only things they look at are the slits and the photons. But the slits and the photons are not the only important players in this field. Even if you ran this experiment in a vacuum, with the walls and the photons as the only objects in the vacuum chamber, you would still not have a void, since the walls are still material objects. As such, they must be emitting an E/M field. The wall, even in a vacuum, is radiating a field all the time. It is this field that the photon must move through. I have proved in several previous papers that the charge field, if defined mechanically, must have mass equivalence. If it has mass equivalence, it must have materiality. In other words, the field that mediates the charge between proton and electron must be made up of discrete particles itself. What is now called the messenger photon cannot be a virtual particle with no mass or energy. It must be a real particle and create a real field. In my most recent paper on this subject I have already given this messenger photon a new name (the This being so, we must now recognize that our central wall in the two slit experiment must be radiating this field (I am talking about the wall drawn in blue above, which contains the two slits). Our single photon must be moving through this field emitted by the central wall. This changes everything in regard to the experiment. The first thing to notice is that we have interference patterns set up by the slits even before the single photon is emitted. If we know that every atom in the wall is emitting this field, as a simple bombarding field, the two slits will create an interference pattern in the field without a single particle moving through the field. The only problem is that we cannot “see” this field. It does not create any lines in the far wall, since It is true that the This simple mechanical explanation not only solves the single photon problem, it also shows why different particles are affected in different ways by the same field. It is quite easy to see that an electron will be funneled by this Now let us look at the mystery of the detector. It has been found that putting a counter or detector in either slit changes the entire data in ways that are not predictable with current mechanics. Specifically, a detector in one slit will destroy the entire interference pattern, returning us to a single pattern on the far wall. The current explanations for this are even more tenuous than explanations for the single photon, since Feynman’s sum-over trick does not explain it. Attempts to fudge an answer by claiming that we must now sum-over both before and after the detector don’t answer the problem unless it is shown how the detector changes the total path. No one has yet done this. Unless Feynman can show The detector mystery has led to even more absurd solutions than the single photon mystery. Along with entanglement, the detector mystery has been one of the primary causes of neo-idealism in physics. Many physicists now believe that simply wanting to know something changes the entire experimental set-up, as if asking a question can physically interrupt a field. In this way, physics has crossed over into mysticism. For what I will show are the flimsiest of reasons, physics has chosen to accept spooky forces and ideational interference in their experiments. Rather than continue to look for mechanical explanations, they have preferred to be satisfied with magic (see my paper But, again, the real solution is simple and logical and mechanical. The detector is a device with real size and materiality. It inhabits space in or near the slit. This detector creates a real field of its own. If it didn’t, it couldn’t detect anything. Wikipedia says, The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector. (If nothing changed in the detector, it would not detect anything.) Logically this is true, but it fails to describe the correct interaction. It is not the interaction between the photon and the detector that deletes the interference pattern, it is the interaction between the I will now make a prediction that will prove that my solution is correct. Look at the illustration at the top of this article. We have two walls, both in blue. Let us simply add a third wall on the left side of the illustration. This is the direction the particles are projected from. We will house our projector in a wall. Like the wall on the far right, this wall on the far left will be made of a substance that allows us to mark a hit by a photon or other particle. As for the central wall, we will make it reflective on the side near the projector (without changing its makeup in any other way). We simply want to be sure that, in the case our particle does not go through one of the slits, it bounces back and returns to the first wall. We don't want the central wall to absorb our particle. OK, now for the prediction. If we purposely fire our particle so that it fails to go through either slit, and it hits the central wall and reflects, I predict that we will find the same interference pattern on the near wall that we found on the far wall. Given the current explanation of Feynman and others, there is no way this could be true. We have no particles going through slits, therefore no sum-over solution will explain the interference. But my solution accounts for it in a very straightforward way. In my solution, it is the central wall that is creating the initial interference pattern, and due to the position of the central wall, it must be creating the same pattern both backwards and forwards. This being true, we must find a very similar pattern created on the near wall to what we found on the far wall. It may not be identical, since reflection will create angles not found when the particles went through the slits. But we would expect a similar interference pattern to be created nonetheless, since the same underlying interference pattern is funneling the particles in both instances. You will say that the first and third walls must also be emitting my The only real problem in the set-up I have described is the hole in the first wall created by the projector itself. This hole will create a ripple in the Speaking of prediction, my solution revitalizes Laplace's famous god's-eye view of mechanics. Laplace proposed that an omniscient entity, knowing an initial state of the universe, could predict all final states. I don't actually agree with Laplace's theory, but the reason I disagree has nothing to do with mechanics. Applied strictly to mechanics, I think his theory is a good one, since it forces us to seek a deterministic and mechanical solution before falling back on a non-deterministic and non-mechanical solution. In physics, this tends to keep us honest. I also think that all these QED arguments against Laplace in the 20th century must ultimately fail. As I have shown here, QED is failing to make good predictions not because the quantum world is fundamentally unpredictable, but because the mechanical groundwork of QED (where it exists at all) is incomplete and false. You can see that once again a simple mechanical explanation has utterly destroyed decades of murky and muddy hypotheses. An entire sub-field of physics has been destroyed with a few pages of elementary logic. And the entire pseudo-philosophy of QED, including the Copenhagen Interpretation, has been annihilated. Quantum physics is If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. I have joined the boycott against Paypal, and suggest you use Amazon instead. It is free and does not enrich any bankers. AMAZON WEBPAY |