[yor_on]

First of all. That a 'photon' can  'split' is a example of the particle wave duality. The only way you can question this is by not accepting the premise that it has one. You more or less correctly describe it in your last post " The double slit experiment has the photon existing as a wave prior to passing through the slits. ". More or less as nobody can tell you 'how' and 'when' it 'decide to do so.

That's what indirect experiments are all about, to prove f.ex. a 'propagation', or  whether the 'photon' can 'know' beforehand what obstacles a experimenter sets up for it etc etc. Indirect evidence is the nature of things in quantum physics as any 'nudge' of that photon will define it as a particle (or wave) with a defined polarization/spin etc. Personally I have a certain reluctance when it comes to accept indirect evidence as being 'the whole truth and so help me God', but that's me :)

As you say a 'photon' is by its nature defined to be indivisible, in the same manner as we define a electron to be so. Often called the smallest measurable building blocks of nature. But it's not the whole story and electrons seems to have their own ways too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiton

Those results do point to a 'field' existing in my eyes, or something interconnected anyway.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: mxplxxx on Today at 03:15:43
Where then does its momentum come from
Relativistic mass.

Highly controversial. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

Not controversial at all.
The page you site says "In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc.  Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons.  Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them, we can certainly bring these "particles" of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass.  That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done.  Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and "particles" of light.  It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful."

Of course the biggest problem with the dual slit experiment is the quantum nature of light. How can a supposedly indivisible photon split into two?

OK, for a start, they are not indivisible- you made that up.

For an encore, If I want to block up both slits in a typical "double slits" experiment, I can cover them with my finger.
I do not need to cut my finger in two to do this.

Photons are not "points".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

First of all. That a 'photon' can  'split' is a example of the particle wave duality. The only way you can question this is by not accepting the premise that it has one. You more or less correctly describe it in your last post " The double slit experiment has the photon existing as a wave prior to passing through the slits. ". More or less as nobody can tell you 'how' and 'when' it 'decide to do so.

That's what indirect experiments are all about, to prove f.ex. a 'propagation', or  whether the 'photon' can 'know' beforehand what obstacles a experimenter sets up for it etc etc. Indirect evidence is the nature of things in quantum physics as any 'nudge' of that photon will define it as a particle (or wave) with a defined polarization/spin etc. Personally I have a certain reluctance when it comes to accept indirect evidence as being 'the whole truth and so help me God', but that's me

As you say a 'photon' is by its nature defined to be indivisible, in the same manner as we define a electron to be so. Often called the smallest measurable building blocks of nature. But it's not the whole story and electrons seems to have their own ways too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiton

Those results do point to a 'field' existing in my eyes, or something interconnected anyway.

Interesting thoughts. You have a refreshingly resilient attitude to physics. You seem to rely a lot on your intuition which, IMHO, you really need when doing research.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It also occurs to me that the wavelength required to fit between the slits of the double slit experiment is that of the EM wave associated with the photon. But the waves the other side of the slits are possibility waves. What does this even mean?

[yor_on]

The interference pattern will be there, although less clearly, if you increase the separation between slits, so that doesn't change it. And I wouldn't call the pattern probabilistic, it should be consistent if you repeat a equivalent experiment. There is a small chance, and possibility, of some interference, of that interference pattern I mean :) but any probability for that has to be  v e r y  s m a l l, as I see it,, presuming the experiment to be consistently set up and repeated..

And no, and yes. I prefer to call it logic myself :) But as you say, some things are what you call, a intuition. We take too much for granted.

[opportunity]

To demonstrate the idea of a wave as light, take a light point source with waves radiating circumferentially from that point source. It goes out everywhere as a spherical front, right? Its fairly problematic to do that with particle beams everywhere radially.

So, to demonstrate the wave theory, the wider the slit, the greater the wave radiation beyond that slit, right?


Two slits....wave interference.

[opportunity]

For nature to design such a mechanism of light is profound....like an after-thought of the universe.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

For nature to design such a mechanism of light is profound....like an after-thought of the universe.

My take on the universe is that it is an evolving entity, constantly getting better until it "runs out of puff" (entropy-wise) at which point it collapses in on itself only to reappear at some point in the future as a big-bang that retains some of the features of the previous evolution.

The probability waves of the double slit experiment seem to help evolution. What is expected to occur does not always happen and the unexpected happenings can change an entity either for the worse, thus decreasing its chances of success in the future or for the better, thus increasing its chances of success in the future.

A successful entity in the universe is one that has mechanisms that help it survive in the face of constant uncertainty and "mistakes". Successful in the sense that it survives long enough to make sure it has offspring. Everything dies eventually, possibly running out of energy with which to correct mistakes.

I think the universe is trying to escape eternity which is a millstone around the neck of time-based entities.

IMHO, everything has a purpose. I see the The purpose of light being to carry change in state information from one particle to another. It may do this randomly ("pull") or by design ("push")  just as the neurotransmitters in the brain do (giving rise to the possibility that electrons may be light receptors).

[opportunity]

Why not? If you could see yourself in a house of mirrors you want just one thing, not endless reflections.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I am a great believer in the universe as a computer that simulates itself. The double slit experiment likely accesses vast amounts of statistical information that is stored and maintained by something that approximates a computer.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The fact that an EM waver travels at the speed of light means that its transverse component exceeds the speed of light. This anomaly is not explained in physics.

But has me wondering whether EM waves originate in the future (think tachyon https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/) or have a future component.

[opportunity]

If what happened before is a part of what must happen in the future, and light dances in between, that's almost steady-state.

If light happens before where it should come from, that's almost mysticism, right?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

If light happens before where it should come from, that's almost mysticism, right?

Isn't the collapse of the wavefunction actually mysticism?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Modern philosophy with the idea:

Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and down
But in the end it's only round and round

[opportunity]

If light happens before where it should come from, that's almost mysticism, right?

Isn't the collapse of the wavefunction actually mysticism?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4568v1.pdf

I've a better explanation. Haven't posted it yet, formally.
No. It depends on distance, and for the lay man ultimately Q-E.

[Bored chemist]

My take on the universe is that it is an evolving entity, constantly getting better until it "runs out of puff" (entropy-wise)

Do you mean " constantly getting better" or do you mean " it "runs out of puff" (entropy-wise)"?
You can't have both.

[yor_on]

" The double slit experiment likely accesses vast amounts of statistical information that is stored and maintained by something that approximates a computer. " Maybe?

It's about HUP and our equivalent 'free will' that one, to me.

From your text I would guess you would like 'free will' to define that statistic, as in defining outcomes, by the way we measure and set up our experiment?. But think of a quantum computer using superpositions. To it all possibilities are there already, existing in those superpositions. So in what way should we define that 'storage'?
=

A 'many worlds' explanation would be that all possibilities are taken, although, depending on probability (statistics for how nature 'works') only choosing one (highest probability normally) for us doing the experiment. I don't like that one by several reasons, one being the one in where it seems centered on us, we become a 'privileged frame' in it to my eyes.

Another way that I like better, is the one in where the question becomes how this 'storage' function. One way to see it would be from something very complicated, meaning that everything is super positioned until 'measured', to something 'simple', in this case meaning a 'outcome'.

The whole idea of calling something 'complicated' is to me centered on our preconceptions. From the view of 'nature' maybe a superposition is what is 'simple'?

[opportunity]

You guys can fight that out, right?

[Bored chemist]

You guys can fight that out, right?

For the most part, the "fight" happened 70 years ago.
Evidence won.

[Bored chemist]

30 years ago I believed it.

What went wrong?
Did you forget?