[Just thinking]

Here we can see a problem. It's as if the writer never really perform the experiment himself. A double band pattern on the screen is only possible if the width of the slits are large enough so diffraction effect is insignificant. But it means that there would be no observable interference effect even if no detector was placed right before the double slit.

Thanks for the link this is amazing how can one photon become two. It is as if the photon has created a new photon by the interaction of its self? And I know that this makes no sense.

[Just thinking]

Re: Is there a better way to explain light?
« Reply #59 on: Today at 17:28:00 »

What will happen if we fire a single photon at a 50% reflective mirror sorry for my poor knocked up diagram. Will the single photon become two?
single photon.PNG (28.74 kB . 1530x784 - viewed 2581 times)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another excerpt from the same article.

But here is where it gets interesting. If you place the detector after the slit there will be no interference pattern. Even after the photon left the slits as a wave it somehow freaks out and tells itself to act as if it came out as a particle. This is a delayed-choice double slit experiment.
How could a photon change what state it was, in the past?
Well trying to conclude that the photon was either a wave or a particle in the past would have to imply some form of time travel. Instead, physicists tend to conclude that it is neither a wave nor a particle. Rather a photon remains undefined until the measurement which prevents the need to bring in time travel.

IMO, most of the time, light behaves like a wave. Except when there's interaction with non-linear electronic components such as dynode/photomultiplier, CMOS sensor, or photovoltaic cell, in which case it shows behaviors like a particle. Thus I think that those electronic components are the cause of particle like behaviors related to light.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Re: Is there a better way to explain light?
« Reply #59 on: Today at 17:28:00 »

What will happen if we fire a single photon at a 50% reflective mirror sorry for my poor knocked up diagram. Will the single photon become two? [ Invalid Attachment ]

Common explanation says that the photon has 50% chance of being reflected, and another 50% chance of being transmitted.
It would mean that if you shine a single photon to the beam splitter 4 times consecutively, there's 1/16 chance that all of them will be transmitted. I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.

[Just thinking]

I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.

I haven't seen this either it might be interesting to find out.

[Bored chemist]

I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.

Yes you have; you just didn't realise it.

[Just thinking]

Yes you have; you just didn't realise it.

Will it work or is it a fail.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.

Yes you have; you just didn't realise it.

Can you provide the link?

[alancalverd]

Instead, physicists tend to conclude that it is neither a wave nor a particle. Rather a photon remains undefined until the measurement which prevents the need to bring in time travel.

IMO, most of the time, light behaves like a wave.

Once again, we see the dangers of confusing a model with an object, and using animalistic  terms like "behave"  as if our object had reason and choice.

We have observed the properties of electromagnetic radiation. We do not have a unique mathematical model that describes and predicts all of them, but by using two models we can get very close. Why make it any more complicated?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Once again, we see the dangers of confusing a model with an object, and using animalistic  terms like "behave"  as if our object had reason and choice.

We have observed the properties of electromagnetic radiation. We do not have a unique mathematical model that describes and predicts all of them, but by using two models we can get very close. Why make it any more complicated?

Relating foreign or new things to more familiar things is part of learning . That's why we use the word virus for computer programs that behave like biological viruses.
What's the rule we can use to select between those two models to solve the problem we are facing?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment

DIY Homemade Double-slit Quantum Eraser Experiment under 50$

The DIY version doesn't look bizarre.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's my newest video investigating diffraction of light by producing single side interference pattern.

I'd like to know if there's an alternative explanation for this experiment.

[Bored chemist]

It would mean that if you shine a single photon to the beam splitter 4 times consecutively, there's 1/16 chance that all of them will be transmitted. I haven't found something like this being demonstrated in an experiment.

You really have seen the experiment done countless times.
There's nothing special about a beam splitter- it's just a thing that reflects some light.
And a photon can't have a "memory" of whether it's been reflected before- it certainly can't tell if it was reflected from a thing that some experimenter had chosen to label as a "beam splitter".

So the question is equivalent to asking how reflection works in general.

And if I look at the lighting in this room- where the sunlight comes in through the window and is scattered (multiple times) round the room, I can judge things like the surface texture, and colour of objects.

That's also true, if I bring the light source into the room by waiting until night and turning the lights on.
Or if I wait until the sun is no longer shining through the window, but is scattered into my room by the sky and other stuff outside.

The room looks the same.
Things don't suddenly change their  properties because the light hitting them has already been reflected.
So we know that the reflectance (and by analogy, the transmission) is unaffected by the history of the photons.

But, if you like, there are actual real experiments using multiple reflections.
One involves looking at eclipses of the sun.
Before we had good optical filters, one way to get a good view of the sun was to get some black glass and polish some flat sheets of it then look at a reflection of a reflection.
Each surface gives (roughly) 10% reflection so 4 or 4 in sequence gives you an image you can look at with a telescope (with a small aperture).
That sort of experiment was done so long ago that it's not easy to find details written up.

But the important thing to realise is this.

If it had not worked, that would have been interesting and there would have been further work until there was an explanation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You really have seen the experiment done countless times.

I haven't. I only need the recording of single photon detection of reflected and transmitted light from a beamsplitter, side by side in a two columns table. I think 1000 data points would be enough to make a conclusion. Only real experiments are acceptable to represent objective reality. No amount of simulations can resolve it.

[Bored chemist]

I haven't.

Yes you have.
I pointed out that every time you look at something you are in effect, doing the experiment.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I haven't.

Yes you have.
I pointed out that every time you look at something you are in effect, doing the experiment.

But the result is different. Here is what's expected when the beamsplitter randomly directs 100 single photons in a row coming into it.
passed   
0   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   1   1   0   0   1   0   1   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   0   1   1   0   0   1   0   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   0   1   1   0   0   0   0   1   0   0   0   0   1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   0   1   1   0   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   0   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   0   1   0   1   0   1   1   1   1   0
reflected   
1   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   0   1   0   0   1   1   0   0   0   0   1   0   0   1   1   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   0   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   0   1   0   1   0   1   1   0   1   0   1   0   0   0   0   1

You can see that activation of second sensor depends on activation of first sensor. They're always complementary.
If my popcorn analogy is correct, it won't be the case. My prediction/hypothesis might be false, but at least it's falsifiable, hence scientific.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's what would be expected if activation of sensor in the path of passed photon is independent from activation of sensor in the path of reflected photon.
passed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
0   0   1   1   0   0   1   1   0   0   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   1   0   1   0   0   0   0   1   1   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   0   1   1   1   0   0   0   1   0   1   0   0   0   0   0   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   0   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   0   1   0   1   1   1   1   1   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   0   0
reflected                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
0   0   1   1   0   0   0   0   1   0   1   0   1   0   0   0   1   1   1   0   0   1   0   0   0   0   1   0   1   0   0   1   0   1   1   1   1   0   1   0   1   1   0   1   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   0   0   0   0   1   0   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   1   1   0   0   1   1   0   1   1   0   1   1   0   0   1   0   1   0   0   0   0

There would be time when both sensors are triggered, but also when none of them are. Statistically, only half of them are complementary.
 

[Bored chemist]

Are you aware of the conservation of energy?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Are you aware of the conservation of energy?

How do you think it would affect the results?
The expected result in reply #76 wouldn't make sense according to conservation of energy, if the transmitter actually sends a single photon at a time, which then triggers the detectors.
But it makes sense if the transmitter transmit the dim light continuously, and trigger the detectors after they accumulate adequate amount of energy. That's why temperature of the detectors affects the detection rate.

[Bored chemist]

What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?

As I have stated in my own thread, Is light real, I believe that light is a phenomenon that is produced by the brain of living creatures. Photons and radiation are parcels of energy that travel from their source and land on a detector/converter this is known as the eye. The energy is then received by the brain and perceived as light. My best example of this being true is the fact that when we dream we see light the light in our dreams come from the brain the only instrument capable of producing this vision of light. The skin can feel intense radiation but only the brain its self can see it.

You seem to have muddled "vison" which happens in the brain with "light" which happens in the outside world.