Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
Subject: Re: OT: Chiao's experiment
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1031905556 5686 188.8.131.52 (13 Sep 2002 08:25:56 GMT)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:25:56 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:25:57 BST
"Dirk Bruere" wrote in message
> "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
> > Again you misunderstand. Of course there are effects equivalent to
> > interference effects. However, one needs to be clear on what
> > interference means. Interference manifests itself by the pattern of
> > discrete, localised effects building over time. Its only when you
> > back a bit the it looks like a real wave pattern. The classic two
> > diffraction pattern can be built up slit with time such that only
> > photon goes through a slit at a time. Its only *after* waiting for
> > to hit that you actually see any pattern at all.
> Haven't got time for a detailed response, at least until next week.
> However, single photon twin arm interferometry is an experimental
> So is quantum non-demolition measurement in the device.
Non of this is in conflict with what I wrote as far as I can see. I will
have to check on exactly what you are claiming here. However, I can not
stress enough that Ballintine interpretation of what a state vector
really is, is 100% compatible with *all* of the predictions of the old
interpretation of QM. Look, the physical interpretation, in most cases
means nothing. The physical interpretation does not change the equations
of QM. The equations and mathematical theory in Ballintine's approach is
the same, it simple dispenses with a wordy interpretation that is daft.
Ballentine expressly considers, page 100, coincidence detection of
photons to show what the wave function means, i.e.
a) The wave packet is a particle etc...
b) The wave function is a physical field etc...
c) The wave packet describes the probability of a particle in a volume
These have different probabilities of coincidence.
a) Coincidence is always detected as the wave packet is really spread in
more then one position
b) c=p^2/4, c is probability of coincidence, p=r.dt etc..
c) Coincidence is always zero, sine a single particle can not be in two
places at once.
This experiment always agrees with c), i.e. a quantum particle is *not*
spread out. However, effects identical to classical wave views, e.g.
diffraction, can be explained in QM without any recourse to a real wave.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.