Post by: talanum1 on 20/01/2022 17:53:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 18:18:31
In the double slit experiment for photons we have photons cancelling anti-photons.Not really.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/01/2022 19:00:52
Post by: Origin on 20/01/2022 19:14:59
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.
Post by: evan_au on 20/01/2022 19:42:24
Quote from: talanum1
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.
Post by: talanum1 on 22/01/2022 14:42:53
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2022 14:48:33
Light is a real physical wave made of photons and anti-photonsNo
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).
Post by: Origin on 22/01/2022 16:01:34
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.
Post by: talanum1 on 22/01/2022 16:10:04
Post by: Origin on 22/01/2022 17:54:45
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2022 20:24:30
By the way, my model of particles predicts that photons and anti-photons are not the same particles.
What are the differences?
Post by: talanum1 on 23/01/2022 08:05:35
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2022 10:19:20
added points of space instead of with left-out points.That's still meaningless.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/01/2022 14:39:13
Post by: evan_au on 23/01/2022 20:51:25
Quote from: talanum1
An anti-photonA 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.
Quote
an electron wave is only a wave of probabilityAn 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
Post by: talanum1 on 24/01/2022 09:55:55
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2022 10:13:41
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?
Post by: talanum1 on 24/01/2022 10:52:43
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/01/2022 11:54:09
I got a photon and anti-photon drawn here in the attachment:That picture is meaningless.Photon, anti-photon.png (2.83 kB . 202x327 - viewed 1419 times)
Post by: Kryptid on 24/01/2022 20:05:54
It can be detected indirectly by noting a photon disappeared.
Why can't it be detected directly?
Post by: talanum1 on 25/01/2022 08:07:18
Actually it is detectable by a camera: I don't know why.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2022 08:34:43
You would have to detect space points - not possible by today's technology.because they don't exist.
Post by: talanum1 on 25/01/2022 09:33:26
Post by: evan_au on 25/01/2022 10:39:09
Quote from: talanum1
Actually (dark bands behind the double slit) is detectable by a camera: I don't know why.I can tell you why: If you shift the phase of a wave by 180, it will cancel with the wave that hasn't been shifted.
- These are boht waves, from the same source
- There is no need for anti-waves
- This also happens for ocean waves and sound waves in air and guitar strings. They don't need anti-oceans or anti-air or anti-guitars to produce phase shifts or cancellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2022 09:31:52
I can tell you why: If you shift the phase of a wave by 180, it will cancel with the wave that hasn't been shifted.With radio transmitters, destructive interference can be produced reliably from two independent sources.
- These are boht waves, from the same source
Post by: evan_au on 27/01/2022 22:25:09
Quote from: hamdani yusuf
destructive interference can be produced reliably from two independent sourcesI agree, if the two sources are frequency-locked. But if they are frequency-locked, they are no longer independent.
If the two sources are on different frequencies, they don't produce fixed patterns of destructive and constructive interference.
That's why the double-slit experiment is so useful - you don't need two frequency-locked sources; you produce two sources (slits) from a single source, so it is automatically frequency-locked.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2022 08:40:41
Spacetime exists by General Relativity. Therefore space and time exists. Therefore space exist (by And-elimination).Did you think that was relevant?
Had anyone said spacetime didn't exist?