[talanum1 (OP)]

In the double slit experiment for photons we have photons cancelling anti-photons. But the same can't happen in the case of electrons. How do the probabilities of two waves cancel?

[Bored chemist]

In the double slit experiment for photons we have photons cancelling anti-photons.

Not really.

[Kryptid]

Photons are their own antiparticle, but antiparticles aren't involved in such double slit experiments anyway.

[Origin]

How do the probabilities of two waves cancel?

I think the question is how do 2 waves cancel each other, the answer is it is just normal wave interference.  Probabilities can't cancel.

[evan_au]

How do the probabilities of two waves cancel?

Every particle (eg photon or electron) has a quantum wave function (I see physicists tend to run it together as "wavefunction").
- This represents the amplitude, phase, position of that particle at a particular time.
- To see what happens to the particle, you follow the evolution of that wavefunction over time.
- When this wavefunction strikes the double-slit experiment apparatus, the amplitude and phase of the wavefunction on the detector screen takes a more complex form than if the source just illuminated the screen (with no slits in-between).
- This is because the wavefunction interferes with itself.
- The wavefunction can have 0° phase or 180° phase (or anywhere in-between), with a high amplitude. But when parts of the wavefunction meet, the amplitude may be increased (constructive interference) or reduced ( destructive interference), perhaps even to 0 amplitude.
- You can calculate the probability of the particle being found at a particular position on the detector screen by taking the square of the wavefunction (ie measure it's amplitude² after cancellation).

So it is not a matter of photons & antiphotons or electrons & positrons cancelling, it is because the wavefunction cancels.

This still works if there is only one particle at a time in the apparatus, because the wavefunction of that particle cancels itself.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Light is a real physical wave made of photons and anti-photons while an electron wave is only a wave of probability. By the way, my model of particles predicts that photons and anti-photons are not the same particles. You could see that that way a photon and anti-photon cancel, while if they are the same, momentum does not cancel.

[Bored chemist]

Light is a real physical wave made of photons and anti-photons

No

By the way, my model of particles predicts that photons and anti-photons are not the same particles.

Then it is wrong.
(Though we already knew that).

[Origin]

while an electron wave is only a wave of probability.

No.  An electron is neither a wave nor a particle.  An electron has has aspects of a wave and aspects of a particle.  A wave of probability is meaningless. 
Making up absurd stuff is kind of fun, but learning about physics also fun not to mention rewarding, you should try it.

[talanum1 (OP)]

One can see with my model that if photons and anti-photons didn't encode momentum in complimentary ways, they would not fully cancel.

[Origin]

One can see with my model that if photons and anti-photons didn't encode momentum in complimentary ways, they would not fully cancel.

You don't have a model, you have a WAG, and you have been shown over and over that your WAG is wrong.

[Kryptid]

By the way, my model of particles predicts that photons and anti-photons are not the same particles.

What are the differences?

[talanum1 (OP)]

An anti-photon is a photon turned through 180 degrees and with momentum encoded with added points of space instead of with left-out points.

[Bored chemist]

added points of space instead of with left-out points.

That's still meaningless.

[Kryptid]

How do you tell the difference between a photon and anti-photon with a particle detector?

[evan_au]

An anti-photon

A laser beam produces coherent photons of a single wavelength (and energy and phase, if it is a high-quality laser).

Does a laser beam produce anti-photons, in your theory?

What happens when this monochromatic light from a laser hits a double-slit experiment? The conventional theory shows how the wavefunction of the photons produces bright and dark bands behind the slits. No anti-photons needed, just a 180° phase shift of "normal" photons from the laser.

an electron wave is only a wave of probability

An electron wavefunction has all the properties of a real electron (or anti-electron=positron).
- That includes charge, velocity, momentum, position, and phase
- as well as the fact that if you measure the position accurately, you can't measure the momentum accurately (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
- And it can also tell you what is the probability of finding the electron at a particular position. It doesn't just tell you this probability.

The double-slit experiment on photons is essentially the same as the double-slit experiment on electrons (taking into account their different wavelengths).
- It is essentially self-interference by the wavefunction, in both cases
- If your theory requires anti-photons in one case, why doesn't it require anti-electrons in the other case?
- The presence of anti-electrons is indicated by bursts of gamma rays, so anti-electrons clearly aren't present....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

[talanum1 (OP)]

How do you tell the difference between a photon and anti-photon with a particle detector?

It can be detected indirectly by noting a photon disappeared.

Does a laser beam produce anti-photons, in your theory?

Yes it produces alternating photons and anti-photons. They don't annihilate because they don't overlap but goes along at the same velocity.

The double-slit experiment on photons is essentially the same as the double-slit experiment on electrons

Then we must be consistent and call the photon waves: waves of probability.

[Bored chemist]

It can be detected indirectly by noting a photon disappeared.

They don't disappear.
Sometimes they get absorbed by stuff.

Then we must be consistent and call the photon waves: waves of probability.

I would agree with you but, if I did that, we would both be wrong.

Why would it be better to be consistently inacurate?

[talanum1 (OP)]

I got a photon and anti-photon drawn here in the attachment:


Photon, anti-photon.png (2.83 kB . 202x327 - viewed 609 times)

[Bored chemist]

I got a photon and anti-photon drawn here in the attachment:


Photon, anti-photon.png (2.83 kB . 202x327 - viewed 609 times)

That picture is meaningless.

[Kryptid]

It can be detected indirectly by noting a photon disappeared.

Why can't it be detected directly?