TEW Discussion

[R Wray 0]

Mr. Speicher:

There have been several posts over the past several days on HBL about TEW. There are probably several members of this forum who also read HBL. I know that you have been very patient in the past and have responded several places many times about TEW. But, if you have read HBL lately, would you care to comment on this forum?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Mr. Speicher:

There have been several posts over the past several days on HBL about TEW. There are probably several members of this forum who also read HBL. I know that you have been very patient in the past and have responded several places many times about TEW. But, if you have read HBL lately, would you care to comment on this forum?

←

Except for a couple that were sent to me privately, I stopped reading the posts on HBL a while ago. However, if you have a question, in your own words, one that has not already been answered before, then feel free to pose the question here.

[R Wray 0]

Except for a couple that were sent to me privately, I stopped reading the posts on HBL a  while ago. However, if you have a question, in your own words, one that has not already been answered before, then feel free to pose the question here.

←

In studying Dr. Little’s Explanation of the Innsbruck Double Delayed Choice Experiment (www.yankee.us.com/TEW/DDC.html), I have extracted the following quotes:

Along any particular line of propagation, individual waves of all polarizations are present.

At the source, every individual wave on each side interacts continually with every individual wave on the other side.

The individual waves interact at the source in the same manner regardless of the polarizer orientations.  Stimulation at angles theta 1 and theta 2 is taking place at all times regardless of the orientations, as is stimulation at all other combinations of orientations.

He argues mathematically that the stimulation of the source photon pairs when observed at any two polarizer angles is proportional to the sin-squared of the difference between the angles.

The TEW approach appears to be focused on a stream of photons. Some other methods of explanation focus on the individual particles; for instance, they consider communication between the members of an individual photon pair.

This may be what Dr. Little was referring to when, relative to Bell’s approach, he states:

But TEW doesn’t attempt to explain things in this manner.  As with other phenomena, the explanation involves multiple waves with multiple polarizations (analogous to multiple paths in the double slit experiment and other phenomena treated previously), which waves interfere with one another in stimulating pair emission.  The particles have only one state, but the waves exist in many, with interference taking place between the waves prior to emission of the particles.

It seems that the detractors of TEW don’t take this into account.

Is there anything in the way that the experiments are conducted (i.e., do they focus on individual particles or streams of particles) that would favor the “individual particle” or Bell approach as compared with the TEW approach?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Is there anything in the way that the experiments are conducted (i.e., do they focus on individual particles or streams of particles) that would favor the “individual particle” or Bell approach as compared with the TEW approach?

←

All of these types of experiment use a source such as parametric down-conversion to generate a large ensemble of particles. But, indeed, the photodiodes used for detection select a very small fraction of the stream. In the Innsbruck experiment, for instance, the individual photon detection rate was a mere 5% of the collection stream.

But, ultimately, even the language used to describe this phenomena is so radically different in the TEW. What does it even mean for a photon to "have" a polarization and to "follow" a wave. If one studies in some depth Little's qualitative and quantitative sections on Feyman Diagrams in his 1996 paper, it is clear that for a scattering event the particle just mimics in some form the elementary waves that have already scattered. The process involves stimulation and emission of secondary particles, but this is primarily a wave action on the particle. A particle is not attached with some cosmic glue to a wave, but rather it reflects an already existing complex of wave interactions. So in the EPR-type experiments it is confusing to think in terms of a polarized particle rather than a particle coherent with the full complex of polarized waves. But, most people do not even read the physics involved, much less understand it.

[Rational_One 0]

So in the EPR-type experiments it is confusing to think in terms of a polarized particle rather than    a particle coherent with the full complex of polarized waves.

←

(Bold mine.) It was my understanding that a particle becomes coherent with just a single elementary wave not a "full complex of polarized waves". Was my understanding wrong? And if so why and how?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

(Bold mine.) It was my understanding that a particle becomes coherent with just a single elementary wave not a "full complex of polarized waves". Was my understanding wrong? And if so why and how?

←

A particle is generally coherent with the full set of elementary waves that have been organized by, say, an inelastic collision at a single point. Generally, however, which individual wave from the set the particle follows is determined by an inner parameter within the particle. Dr. Little demonstrated in his write-up that the quantum states |0> and |1> corresponding to the H and V polarization of particles prepared by the parametric down-conversion in the Innsbruck experiment, can be described by either waves at the polarizer with the full set of indivdually polarized waves, or described by the waves being organized into two groups, two "polarized" waves at right angles to each other. But, in either case, the particle is coherent with the full set of waves.

[Rational_One 0]

Thank you for your reply Mr. Speicher. I think I am going to read through Dr. Little's paper again soon so that I can "chew" some of these finer points of his theory that I may have missed on my first go through.

[Paul's Here 0]

I finally watched the TEW presentation at JPL but I haven't yet read the papers. I have two questions that I hope you can answer.

1. The reverse wave theory seems to imply that the double-slit diffraction pattern is created along any particular path by the interaction of waves coming from the screen itself. Isn’t the diffraction pattern present in space and all that the screen does is provide us with a means to view the pattern at a particular plane at a certain distance from the double slit? If the diffraction patter is not present in space without the presences of the screen, what are the particles coming from the source doing?

2. Suppose light from a source that is one light-hour away from observers A & B (both located at point P) was emitted one hour ago at time, t(0). The photons will follow a path back to P along the reverse wave created by the presence of A & B. Suppose Observer A moves to location Q at t + ¼ hour after t(0). A new pattern of reverse waves is established causing some of the photons headed for P to be diverted to Q. Will B observe some disturbance in the light when it reaches his location at P because of A’s new location?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

1. The reverse wave theory seems to imply that the double-slit diffraction pattern is created along any particular path by the interaction of waves coming from the screen itself. Isn't the diffraction pattern present in space and all that the screen does is provide us with a means to view the pattern at a particular plane at a certain distance from the double slit? If the diffraction patter is not present in space without the presences of the screen, what are the particles coming from the source doing?

The fact that the interference pattern at the screen is built-up over an extended period of time, is sufficient to dispel the notion that the pattern itself is present in space. However, one can reasonably say that, given a source capable of emitting particles in response to the stimulation of the waves that are coherent with each of the points of the screen on which the interference pattern will eventually appear, that pattern itself was essentially determined in advance by the constructive and destructive interference of the waves at the slits. The particles simply follow their waves back to the screen, where the interference pattern is registered, over time, by inelastic collision with the particles composing the screen.

2. Suppose light from a source that is one light-hour away from observers A & B (both located at point P) was emitted one hour ago at time, t(0). The photons will follow a path back to P along the reverse wave created by the presence of A & B. Suppose Observer A moves to location Q at t + ¼ hour after t(0). A new pattern of reverse waves is established causing some of the photons headed for P to be diverted to Q. Will B observe some disturbance in the light when it reaches his location at P because of A's new location?

What I have bolded in the quote above is the main source of the confusion. The elementary waves are omnipresent in space; they are not fixed to an observer nor do they accompany the observer in motion. The effect of an observer (or, more generally, any detector) is to establish coherence with the waves in its vicinity, and any light that is detected is done so in a local manner. All that is necessary for emission of a particle is the presence of an elementary wave. It would be nonsensical to require that wave to have originated from a detector large distances away, and that that particle would somehow be tied to that detector for later observation. If that were true, how could we in our short lifetime observe light that was emitted from distances thousands or millions of light years away?

So the wave that a particle follows will frequently become disrupted due to the motion of the detector that established the coherence, and the particle will simply jump onto the wave with some newly established coherence. The detector, which moves, will not detect the light from the position it occupied some time ago, but rather it will establish coherence with the wave in its new vicinity, and the light it detects will be whatever photons are local to it.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------

that pattern itself was essentially determined in advance by the constructive and destructive interference of the waves at the slits. The particles simply follow their waves back to the screen, where the interference pattern is registered, over time, by inelastic collision with the particles composing the screen.

I thought Little explained that the waves were being emitted by the surface of the screen and that it was the constructive/destructive interference with these waves from behind the slits that determines which reverse wave the photons will follow back to the screen.

Suppose one did the double slit experiment with no screen, and the source pointing up into space so there was no background surface. It would seem, from TEW, that the photons are simply going to go straight through the double slits, following the EWs. Since there is no interference pattern behind the double slit from the EWs generated by the screen, no diffraction pattern should be present in space. Is this correct?

-------

So the wave that a particle follows will frequently become disrupted due to the motion of the detector that established the coherence, and the particle will simply jump onto the wave with some newly established coherence. The detector, which moves, will not detect the light from the position it occupied some time ago, but rather it will establish coherence with the wave in its new vicinity, and the light it detects will be whatever photons are local to it.

So, let me see if I can summarize my understanding. The elementary waves (EW) are omnipresent in reality; those locations that constructive and destructive interference occur determine which reverse wave the photons will follow or won't follow. (Or am I wrong here? Will the photon simply be emitted when the source is struck by any individual EW?) When a detector or observer happens to be looking in the direction of the source of these photons, new local patterns of EW are established because of the presence of the surface of the detector. The photons travel back to the detector in reverse direction from the new coherent wave. If the detector happens to be in a location that destructive interference results with the other EWs, then no photos will be detected, as occurs between the peaks of a diffraction pattern.

If the detector (or screen for the double slit experiment) is moved closer or further away from the source, it takes time [how long?] for a new diffraction pattern to be established.

---------------

If the above is wrong, am I correct is in assuming that elementary waves are different from the waves being emitted by the surface of the detector or screen? I'm not sure I understand what coherence means. Does coherence mean the pattern of EW waves that results from constructive interference?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Suppose one did the double slit experiment with no screen, and the source pointing up into space so there was no background surface. It would seem, from TEW, that the photons are simply going to go straight through the double slits, following the EWs. Since there is no interference pattern behind the double slit from the EWs generated by the screen, no diffraction pattern should be present in space. Is this correct?

Not quite. To be clear, the elementary waves are not "generated by the screen": they exist independently, at all times, everywhere. All that the source requires for particle emission is the availability of an elementary wave. The issue is not if there is an "interference pattern behind the double slit": that is a consequence, not a cause. The waves will still scatter at the slit if the screen is not present, so the particles are not "simply going to go straight through the double slits." The particles will scatter at the slits just as did the waves, but the absence of the screen will certainly change the distribution of those emitted particles.

So, let me see if I can summarize my understanding. The elementary waves (EW) are omnipresent in reality; those locations that constructive and destructive interference occur determine which reverse wave the photons will follow or won't follow.

The constructive or destructive interference occurs at the screen in the standard theory, but in the TEW it occurs at the source (I see now that in the previous post I miswrote "slits" for "source." I hope that did not add to the confusion). The points on the screen do not know in advance how or why the waves will later interfere. But when the waves do interfere at the source then indeed the particles will follow their waves back to the screen, where the screen registers a pattern that reflects the particle distribution over time.

When a detector or observer happens to be looking in the direction of the source of these photons, new local patterns of EW are established because of the presence of the surface of the detector.

Yes, but in particular, it is the particles of which the "surface" is composed that interact with the elementary waves.

The photons travel back to the detector in reverse direction from the new coherent wave. If the detector happens to be in a location that destructive interference results with the other EWs, then no photos will be detected, as occurs between the peaks of a diffraction pattern.

Correct.

If the detector (or screen for the double slit experiment) is moved closer or further away from the source, it takes time [how long?] for a new diffraction pattern to be established.

The time for the pattern to be established on the screen depends on the emission rate of the source. The change in coherence of the wave, however, travels at the speed of light.

I'm not sure I understand what coherence means. Does coherence mean the pattern of EW waves that results from constructive interference?

You can think of coherence as a similarity among waves which allows them to interfere with each other.