The experiment shows all the photons counted from the two slits individually are present and detected in the interference pattern.
I actually checked this some years ago ..
Interference_pattern_counts = Slit_A_counts + Slit_B_counts
I'm guessing the mistake is assuming 600 counts from slit A and 600 from slit B would give a 'bright' count of 1,200 and an average of 600 counts .. leaving 600 counts as 'dark' or undetected. In reality we see 600 from A and 600 from B gives a 'bright' count of 2,400 and an average of 1,200 .. which is what came in from the two slits and no 'dark' states to be accounted for.
Basically the individual photons do sum to make what is known as an electromagnetic wave but not (apparently) in the way Boas et al seem to imagine.
Edit .. SS just 'knew' all the photons would be there .. ?? (impressed)
(May 21, 2025 10:22 AM)confused2 Wrote: Edit .. SS just 'knew' all the photons would be there .. ?? (impressed)
Hmm…not sure what you're saying here. Maybe you're just channeling whatever chatbot.
Regarding the eraser experiment with the 45-degree polarizer, I’m thinking only 50 percent are reaching the detector. It just recombines the previously non-interfering H and V components allowing their probability amplitudes to interfere again.
Regarding this new paper, Glauber’s work has been extensively tested and is a cornerstone of modern quantum optics. Glauber’s view aligns with the standard interpretation of quantum field theory and quantum optics. When photons are in regions of destructive interference, the probability of detecting them is zero — but they still exist in the field as quantum excitations. The "zero" detection is just the result of quantum interference, not the absence of the photon itself.
The new paper, while agreeing with the general principle that photons still exist in destructive interference, proposes that these dark states could be detectable under certain conditions. The idea is that photons are in a quantum superposition that makes them undetectable by standard detectors, but new experimental techniques, e.g., weak measurements or quantum erasure might allow us to interact with these photons in a way that reveals their presence without fully collapsing their quantum state.
The new paper suggests the possibility that we could measure photons that would otherwise be undetectable using conventional detection methods. This is a novel proposal, but it's not yet experimentally verified.
Glauber’s framework, on the other hand, does not suggest the possibility of detecting photons in those regions but simply states that they still exist as part of the quantum field, but detection is zero due to interference.
We're looking at (or not) a hypothetical particle that is a superposition of a photon and .. nothing? If the hypothetical particle has the same properties as a 'normal' photon then (double slit wise) we know it will end up being not detected in the same place as the normal photons which make bright bands and set counters counting. If the particle has (say) 'opposite' properties and the majority end up in the dark region and the minority in the bright region ??? is that where we're going with this particle?
(May 21, 2025 05:05 PM)confused2 Wrote: We're looking at (or not) a hypothetical particle that is a superposition of a photon and .. nothing? If the hypothetical particle has the same properties as a 'normal' photon then (double slit wise) we know it will end up being not detected in the same place as the normal photons which make bright bands and set counters counting. If the particle has (say) 'opposite' properties and the majority end up in the dark region and the minority in the bright region ??? is that where we're going with this particle?
From the video of Glauber’s lecture↓
*Dirac discovered that one must treat the vacuum (empty space) as a dynamical system.
Quantum mechanics added a very important small point. You can never have a harmonic oscillator with zero energy in it because that would fix both its position and its momentum at zero value.
So, in fact according to Dirac, not only is the vacuum full of harmonic oscillators but these harmonic oscillators always have their fundamental fluctuations—the zero point fluctuations going on. The vacuum is a dynamical system, it’s not empty, it is buzzing with electromagnetic fields. You can withdrawal no energy at all from those electromagnetic fields, but you can in fact amplify zero-point oscillations. We have to regard them as very real even though we cannot perceive them directly.
You can start the video at 19:01 for the double slit. ↓
*The two-photon dilemma is stated in Dirac’s famous text and says that each photon only interferes with itself and that interference between two photons never occurs. Forgive me. This is Quantum mechanical scripture, but it is also nonsense. The things that interfere are not objects themselves, they are the amplitudes for certain possible histories.”
Then again at 36:40.
*That’s at the point where I felt we were going astray.
Glauber's theory of optical coherence indeed suggests that photons involved in an interference experiment like the double-slit experiment don't "vanish" in the classical sense when they interfere destructively. Instead, their behavior is better understood in terms of correlation functions.
In the context of quantum optics, Glauber's theory focuses on the statistical properties of light. Light, in this case, is treated as a quantum field where the number of photons (or the intensity of the light) at different points in space and time is described by a field operator. Interference patterns, such as those seen in the double-slit experiment, arise from the correlations between these fields at different locations. So, rather than saying that photons "vanish" where destructive interference occurs, the statistical behavior of the field is described by correlation functions.
In regard to this new paper, if you’re thinking about the possibility of detecting something like a "zero-point energy particle," it's worth noting that this isn't exactly what the paper suggests. Zero-point energy refers to the fluctuating field in the vacuum that, even at its lowest energy state, has nonzero fluctuations.
What the researchers seem to be exploring is a method to make certain quantum states (which might be in a form that involves no detectable photons in certain regions of space) detectable by altering the state with a which-path observation.
The researchers are exploring a novel way of making photons that were previously undetectable (because of destructive interference) detectable by a careful observation strategy, rather than detecting hypothetical zero-point energy particles per se.
Hope that clears it up, C2—no more rabbits in the rabbit hole.
confused2May 21, 2025 11:59 PM (This post was last modified: May 22, 2025 12:01 AM by confused2.
Edit Reason: interpretation was edited in after particle
)
Glauber was given a Nobel prize (in 2005) for a paper he wrote in 1963. Since 1963 the culture and concepts have changed considerably - I think mostly thanks to Feynman who did straight 'quantum mechanics' rather than an 'optics' take on the subject.
Rather than attempt to point out problems with Glauber's hypothetical particle/interpretation .. would the fact that it has never been found (or even looked for) after 60 years be enough to suggest that it never really had legs?
(May 21, 2025 11:59 PM)confused2 Wrote: Glauber was given a Nobel prize (in 2005) for a paper he wrote in 1963. Since 1963 the culture and concepts have changed considerably - I think mostly thanks to Feynman who did straight 'quantum mechanics' rather than an 'optics' take on the subject.
Rather than attempt to point out problems with Glauber's hypothetical particle/interpretation .. would the fact that it has never been found (or even looked for) after 60 years be enough to suggest that it never really had legs?
Okay, C2, at this point you can tell that it's your misunderstanding or laziness. Glauber's theory is widely accepted and it doesn't include a hypothetical particle/interpretation. Like I said, I provided you with all the information, you just have to read, think, and absorb it. You'd enjoy the lecture if you watched it.
What would whatever chat say to you at this point? Whatever it is, just go with that, but don't think that you can threaten me with a good time (questions about an existential crisis).
confused2May 22, 2025 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: May 22, 2025 11:22 AM by confused2.)
SS Wrote:misunderstanding or laziness
I resemble that.
Let's look at one photon and two detectors A and B. Say with 25% probability of being detected at A and 25% probability of being detected at B. Now let's have two photons. Same game but now we can have 2 counts at A, two counts at B or one photon counted at A and the other at B or one at B and the other at A or no counts. The two photon result isn't like one photon and then another photon. Call it interference, correlation, diversity, equality or whatever you like but the result is a heap of maths that I don't understand and really can't be bothered with. Which would be why this lazy old fool was trying to direct attention to one photon at a time because that's all I know about.
Like with old cats, you wouldn't move the food bowl to where the litter tray used to be and the litter tray to where the food bowl should be. Edit .. maybe you would.
Let's look at one photon and two detectors A and B. Say with 25% probability of being detected at A and 25% probability of being detected at B. Now let's have two photons. Same game but now we can have 2 counts at A, two counts at B or one photon counted at A and the other at B or one at B and the other at A or no counts. The two photon result isn't like one photon and then another photon. Call it interference, correlation, diversity, equality or whatever you like but the result is a heap of maths that I don't understand and really can't be bothered with. Which would be why this lazy old fool was trying to direct attention to one photon at a time because that's all I know about.
Like with old cats, you wouldn't move the food bowl to where the litter tray used to be and the litter tray to where the food bowl should be. Edit .. maybe you would.
If you’re asking about the exact treatment of "dark regions," those correspond to locations where the probability of detecting a photon is zero due to destructive interference, but the wavefunction still mathematically exists in those regions as part of the broader superposition.
We’ll stick with one photon.
In the double-slit experiment, a single photon can pass through both slits simultaneously due to superposition, creating an interference pattern.
This indicates that the photon exists in a superposition of paths, even in regions where destructive interference leads to dark fringes. The dark regions are just part of the broader wave function that exists before the collapse occurs.
Maybe you could say if it’s a really old cat, it needs both the food bowl and the litter tray simultaneously, that is...until it collapses.
(May 23, 2025 10:03 PM)C C Wrote: Still trying to encroach upon the name of the dark matter hypothetical force carrier...
Yeah, I saw another paper where they said it was potentially hinting at connections with forms of dark energy or dark matter.
"As shown here, at any given spacetime point, only a small fraction of the available energy can excite atoms or vibrational modes of matter. This suggests the existence of energetically relevant components that are fundamentally inaccessible by standard electromagnetic means, potentially hinting at connections with forms of dark energy or dark matter. While this connection is intriguing, it is far from straightforward and would require a much deeper investigation, which lies beyond the scope of this work."
May 21, 2025 10:22 AM
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2025 10:33 AM by confused2.)
![[Image: 3c5c71_2f00125584a24a30b1933ba0fa4c2736~mv2.gif]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/3c5c71_2f00125584a24a30b1933ba0fa4c2736~mv2.gif)
