Physicists detect exotic looped trajectories of light in three-slit experiment

January 6, 2017 by Lisa Zyga feature
The red path shows an exotic looped trajectory of light through a three-slit structure, which was observed for the first time in the new study. Credit: Magaña-Loaiza et al. Nature Communications

(Phys.org)—Physicists have performed a variation of the famous 200-year-old double-slit experiment that, for the first time, involves "exotic looped trajectories" of photons. These photons travel forward through one slit, then loop around and travel back through another slit, and then sometimes loop around again and travel forward through a third slit.

Interestingly, the contribution of these looped trajectories to the overall interference pattern leads to an apparent deviation from the usual form of the . This apparent deviation can be understood as an incorrect application of the superposition principle—once the additional interference between looped and straight trajectories is accounted for, the superposition can be correctly applied.

The team of physicists, led by Omar S. Magaña-Loaiza and Israel De Leon, has published a paper on the new experiment in a recent issue of Nature Communications.

Loops of light

"Our work is the first experimental observation of looped trajectories," De Leon told Phys.org. "Looped trajectories are extremely difficult to detect because of their low probability of occurrence. Previously, researchers had suggested that these exotic trajectories could exist but failed to observe them."

To increase the probability of the occurrence of looped trajectories, the researchers designed a three-slit structure that supports surface plasmons, which the scientists describe as "strongly confined electromagnetic fields that can exist at the surface of metals." The presence of these electromagnetic fields near the three slits increases the contribution of looped trajectories to the overall interference pattern by almost two orders of magnitude.

"We provided a physical explanation that links the probability of these exotic trajectories to the near fields around the slits," De Leon said. "As such, one can increase the strength of near fields around the slits to increase the probability of photons following looped trajectories."

Superposition principle accounting for looped trajectories

The new three-slit experiment with looped trajectories is just one of many variations of the original double-slit experiment, first performed by Thomas Young in 1801. Since then, researchers have been performing versions that use electrons, atoms, or molecules instead of photons.

One of the reasons why the has attracted so much attention is that it represents a physical manifestation of the principle of . The observation that individual particles can create an interference pattern implies that the particles must travel through both slits at the same time. This ability to occupy two places, or states, at once, is the defining feature of quantum superposition.

Straight trajectories (green) and exotic looped trajectories (red, dashed, dotted) of light, where the red cloud near the surface depicts the near fields, which increase the probability of photons to follow looped trajectories. The graphs at left show simulations (top) and experimental results (bottom) of the large difference in interference patterns created by illuminating only one slit being treated independently (gray line) and the actual coupled system (blue line). The remarkable difference between the gray and blue lines is caused by the looped trajectories. Credit: Magaña-Loaiza et al. Nature Communications

So far, all previous versions of the experiment have produced results that appear to be accurately described by the principle of superposition. This is because looped trajectories are so rare under normal conditions that their contribution to the overall interference pattern is typically negligible, and so applying the superposition principle to those cases results in a very good approximation.

It is when the contribution of the looped trajectories becomes non-negligible that it becomes apparent that the total interference is not simply the superposition of individual wavefunctions of photons with straight trajectories, and so the is not correctly described by the usual form of the superposition principle.

Magaña-Loaiza explained this apparent deviation in more detail:

"The superposition principle is always valid—what is not valid is the inaccurate application of the superposition principle to a system with two or three slits," he said.

"For the past two centuries, scientists have assumed that one cannot observe interference if only one slit is illuminated in a two- or three-slit interferometer, and this is because this scenario represents the usual or typical case.

"However, in our paper we demonstrate that this is true only if the probability of photons to follow looped trajectories is negligible. Surprisingly, interference fringes are formed when photons following looped trajectories interfere with photons following straight (direct) trajectories, even when only one of the three slits is illuminated.

"The superposition principle can be applied to this surprising scenario by using the sum or 'superposition' of two wavefunctions; one describing a straight trajectory and the other describing looped trajectories. Not taking into account looped trajectories would represent an incorrect application of the superposition principle.

"To some extent, this effect is strange because scientists know that Thomas Young observed interference when he illuminated both slits and not only one. This is true only if the probability of following looped trajectories is negligible."

In addition to impacting physicists' understanding of the superposition principle as it is applied to these experiments, the results also reveal new properties of light that could have applications for quantum simulators and other technologies that rely on interference effects.

"We believe that exotic looped paths can have important implications in the study of decoherence mechanisms in interferometry or to increase the complexity of certain protocols for quantum random walks, quantum simulators, and other algorithms used in quantum computation," De Leon said.

Explore further: Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism

More information: Omar S. Magaña-Loaiza, Israel De Leon et al. "Exotic looped trajectories of photons in three-slit interference." Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13987

Related Stories

Researchers demonstrate 'quantum surrealism'

February 19, 2016

New research demonstrates that particles at the quantum level can in fact be seen as behaving something like billiard balls rolling along a table, and not merely as the probabilistic smears that the standard interpretation ...

Recommended for you

Studying the quantum vacuum: Traffic jam in empty space

January 18, 2017

An important step towards a completely new experimental access to quantum physics has been made at University of Konstanz. The team of scientists headed by Professor Alfred Leitenstorfer has now shown how to manipulate the ...

Flexible ferroelectrics bring two material worlds together

January 17, 2017

Until recently, "flexible ferroelectrics" could have been thought of as the same type of oxymoronic phrase. However, thanks to a new discovery by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory in collaboration ...

86 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2017
Just confirms that all known laws of physics are only approximations applicable at relatively large scale. The establishment view of how our universe works is fundamentally wrong.
RichManJoe
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2017
This is interesting, but it appears what is happening is that the researchers have increased the probabilities of additional paths through the grid. It does not seem to help answer why, when single photons pass through the grid, they still show interference. Am I wrong?
EyeNStein
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2017
The silly graphics with this article that show photons swerving round corners in free space will only encourage loonies to create their own pseudo science interpretations.

The text is also unclear whether the interference differs from that expected from compounded wave refractions at the slits?
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2017
Just confirms that all known laws of physics are only approximations applicable at relatively large scale. .

how so?
richdiggins
not rated yet Jan 06, 2017
in my opinion the "photon" is an outdated model. perhaps a photon is just a ripple of energy. Its not like you can have a pile of photons ...
katesisco
not rated yet Jan 06, 2017
For some reason this made me think of the eddy field created secondary to the main magnetic field in a waste stream separation line.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2017
Hmm...loopy photons. Finally an explanation as to why my headlights are dimmer than I expected and cast light where I don't want.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Jan 06, 2017
@Reg Mundy

Just confirms that all known laws of physics are only approximations.... fundamentally wrong.


Physics like biology might be probably approximately correct. It goes back to the Greeks in some sense. Can we utilize a priori features of distributions, hence Liouville's theorem(independence). Or must we go back and make the experiment consistent with a quantum Hamming bound set by the entire experimental system(superposition conditional)?

Perhaps these things are isomorphic like the Copenhagen integration of probability and the surreal geometric pilot-wave theories. It might be a human thing to judge a difference. In relational theories a trivial case is chosen the expand upon, but in statistics and Bayesian networks we usually require unitarity with a distribution. Origin and unfolding makes music with M-theory, but emergent anthropic principles is loop quantum gravity's introduction.
Spaced out Engineer
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2017
in my opinion the "photon" is an outdated model. perhaps a photon is just a ripple of energy. Its not like you can have a pile of photons ...


Tell that to the principle of least action using Feynman path integrals. We call it light particles and we sum a pile of photons taking all paths. Those that take the most least paths are what is observed.

Recent experiments have shown the ontology of the waveform to be taken as real.
shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2017
in my opinion the "photon" is an outdated model.


You're not too far off. The real problem is the word 'particle' in the colloquial sense is an outdated model. There are still particles and photons in physics. They're just not little balls of 'stuff.' They are, in fact, 'ripples of energy' (energy-carrying excitations of some quantum field; in the case of photons, the EM field).

Particle in the more modern sense means that there is a discrete 'ripple' (wave packet, if you will) that carries momentum and energy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2017
Hi RNP, Phys1 (and also the bot-voting ignoramus who has begun the New Year in the same woefully stupid state he ended in last year). :)

Now, which of you gentlemen/ladies (as case may be) is going to be first to do the fair and honorable thing, and admit I was correct all along re critical role played by barrier-slit configuration/sufaces/edges 're-radiating' plasmonic/near-field' 'wave resonance' EM energy 'packets' in all 'slt-experiment' situations?

In case you've 'forgotten' what I said, here's a reminder:

http://phys.org/n...ent.html

http://phys.org/n...ale.html

I trust we all are NOW 'on the same page' I was 'on' long before mainstream professionals even considered 'barrier' plasmonics/near-field may affect/explain two-slit 'observations'. PS: Any apologies for past personal insults/arrogant denials in your dealings with me will be accepted without gloating etc on my part. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2017
@Spaced-Out
Seems to me that all phenomena can be represented by a mathematical model, subsequently refined for increasing accuracy (i.e. reality) without any fundamental understanding of the actual mechanisms involved. The majority then interpret the mathematical model as the explanation for the phenomena with absolutely no regard to the underlying truth. Science should be devoted to identifying HOW the universe actually works, not defending disproven formulae. With all the brains available, surely someone can come up with a more-convincing TOE than the current shambles with its DM, DE, gravitons, etc., etc..
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2017
in my opinion the "photon" is an outdated model.


You're not too far off. The real problem is the word 'particle' in the colloquial sense ... They are, in fact, 'ripples of energy' (energy-carrying excitations of some quantum field; in the case of photons, the EM field).

Particle in the more modern sense means that there is a discrete 'ripple' (wave packet, if you will) that carries momentum and energy.

And those wave packets travel through space arranged in discrete, tight helical paths - a "gyre" for lack of better term...
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
travel through space arranged in discrete, tight helical paths


Maybe you imagine that to be the case but it's no part of established scientific theory on the matter.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2017
The paper is not paywalled; it's available in full at the link at the end of the article.

This is fascinating; it shows that the path integral approach is not just a mathematical oddity but an experimentally demonstrable reality. Feynman turns out to be righter than everyone thought... again.

An important point here is that while the probability of such looped trajectories is below the measurement error threshold in the unenhanced experiment, it is not zero; the experiment in the surface plasmon enhanced mode merely exaggerates the probability of the looped trajectories, it does not create them. Both modes are demonstrated in this experiment, and can be directly compared.

The conclusion to be reached is that even if you think you can tell which slit the particle went through, if there's more than one alternative in the near field, which means with a path length close to the same as the length for the path you think you have determined, then you will still see interference.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
@shavera:
travel through space arranged in discrete, tight helical paths
Maybe you imagine that to be the case but it's no part of established scientific theory on the matter.
Whyde's talking about polarization. It's actually a fairly astute point.

@RichManJoe:
This is interesting, but it appears what is happening is that the researchers have increased the probabilities of additional paths through the grid. It does not seem to help answer why, when single photons pass through the grid, they still show interference. Am I wrong?
I won't say wrong, I'll say incorrect. The experiment actually uses single photons. You wouldn't know that from reading the article; you have to go read the paper and examine the experimental setup; it also helps if you've seen writeups of the DCQE (which I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with if you're interested enough to be asking this question). You got a 5 from me despite being incorrect for asking a good question.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2017
@EyeNStein:
The silly graphics with this article that show photons swerving round corners in free space will only encourage loonies to create their own pseudo science interpretations.
Actually it turns out that the photons swerve around corners in free space due to the excitation of surface plasmons in the gold slit assembly and their interaction with the photons.

The text is also unclear whether the interference differs from that expected from compounded wave refractions at the slits?
The interference terms are carefully calculated using numerical simulation of the Maxwell equations. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "compounded wave refractions at the slits," so I can't say whether this might be tantamount to the plasmon effects.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2017
@shavera, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the wave packet analogy. Your comments on particles are well taken, but wave packets have limitations (and I mean to imply that in the sense of limits in calculus: in one limit, they behave like classical particles, in the other like classical waves).

I'd rather say that the concept of "particle" in quantum mechanics is not really very much like the concept of "particle" in classical physics; in quantum mechanics, "particles" have wavelike characteristics that are absent in the classical concept of "particle."
jonathanL
not rated yet Jan 07, 2017
Did I understand correctly: the so call naive picture of superposition does not consider the new paths (loops) that are enhanced due to the excitation of surface mode, which in turn affect the finally measured intensity? If so, it's just because people knew little about nearfield properties of light back then. I just wonder what's actually new? Since all these surface waves are well known for the community in plasmonics, metamaterials and nanophotonics, and what's measured is the interference of surface wave. Seems everything can be explained classically, is it really more advanced to introduce fancy terms like "photons" and "loops"?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
Let's put it this way: because the loop probabilities are below the uncertainty in measurement, it was assumed they could be ignored. This has turned out to be incorrect under some circumstances, and this incorrectness has been shown not to be circumstantial, but intrinsic.
betterexists
not rated yet Jan 07, 2017
We are flooded with SciTech news Which is for a few devoted in that field only.
Rather, I wish to see Viewable Applications. For eg., suppose some are standing at a Bus Stop and on very first rain drop, they should be covered with a suitable tent above...so that there will be no need for anyone standing there to open up an umbrella. Then, the question arises. What happens if several more step in at once? How do you cover them up too..Without messing up the whole place!
TrollBane
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2017
"Hmm...loopy photons. Finally an explanation as to why my headlights are dimmer than I expected and cast light where I don't want." That, or you've had one too many. If we judge your connection to reality by your comment history...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2017
travel through space arranged in discrete, tight helical paths


Maybe you imagine that to be the case but it's no part of established scientific theory on the matter.


Oh, come all ye faithful (afraid to cross the toed lines in the sand...:-)
"established scientific theory" is just a line.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Guess who said that...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2017
I'd rather say that the concept of "particle" in quantum mechanics is not really very much like the concept of "particle" in classical physics; in quantum mechanics, "particles" have wavelike characteristics that are absent in the classical concept of "particle."

In my own Universe, what we see as "particles" are even smaller groupings of "waves" we can't see yet(due to resolution limits). The wave moves thru spacetime in helical fashion.
I s'pose you might label that as"string theory"-ish. I dunno...
Anyway, it's a WIP...:-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
We could (and perhaps should) call them something other than "particles" or "waves." They're not really like the particles or waves we encounter in everyday experience. They share some characteristics with them, that's all. They're both analogies that break down if you try to push them too far. "Wave packets" are probably a better analogy than either, but that too breaks down if you push it too far. Quanta is what they really are, and that's a good term because it doesn't have any of the semantic baggage the other terms have.

It's worth keeping in mind that we can see individual quanta; we have to use a scintillation screen, though. The human eye's retina will respond to one photon, but the filtering system will not pass it along to the brain unless several of them hit within a short time: http://math.ucr.e...ton.html
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2017
[contd]
A scintillation screen produces enough photons for us to see the impact on the screen of a single quantum. Some CCD chips also can respond to single quanta, as well.

The idea of a "particle" indicates that a quantum is a localized phenomenon, with a finite size. This is why this terminology is used.

"Wave" is used because the mathematical description of a quantum includes math that is substantially similar to the math we use to describe water or sound waves.

"Wave packet" partakes of some of each of these characteristics. But it still doesn't really capture things like quantum non-locality or entanglement.

"Quantum" takes the whole thing in, but is resistant to our imagination since we do not encounter quanta in everyday existence.

Choose your poison.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
"Quantum" takes the whole thing in, but is resistant to our imagination since we do not encounter quanta in everyday existence.

Oh, but we do! Every single thing we see is a "quanta". You, me, your car, your house, your computer, a tree, the planets and so on and so on... Each is a quantum entity that follows certain rules of operation and conduct. Hell, even the rules are quantum.
The act of DEFINING something as quanta (ergo, the itty-bitty things we THINK are the bottom limit), competes with our imagination...
Choose your poison.

We don't really get a choice - it's already in the Kool-aid we all drink by just being here...:-)
Hopefully, you've developed a tolerance by drinking a little each day.
('Dread Pirate Roberts' reference...)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2017
Hi RNP. :)

The forum notes you/other detractors/trolls have yet to do the fair and honorable thing by me here (It was ME pointed out that plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results. :)

We also note you keep accusing me (in another thread) of 'not being scientific'....despite recent/ongoing mainstream discovery/review ITSELF increasingly confirming me correct all along in my physics understandings/insights; on many fronts; ranging from cosmological (elsewhere) down to quantum (here) phenomena!

What does it take for you/them to do the fair and honorable thing, RNP?

I was correct all along, yet you deny/attack from personal/ego needs/beliefs and obviously outdated 'facts'.

RNP, the case is clear (especially in this instance). The above/previous relevant articles, and my comments, prove beyond doubt!

Eg: http://phys.org/n...ent.html

Ditch denial, RNP et al; do the fair and honorable thing. :)
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
@RealityCheck
As usual no support for your self serving claims, nor any demonstration of understanding of the subject. This is most clearly demonstrated by your obviously fallacious claim that "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results".

If you had read the article that you linked properly you would have seen that it says "the researchers employed a different kind of interferometer that makes use of plasmonics". I.e. Most interferometers DO NOT make us of plasmonics. So, again, you demonstrate that either you do not understand the science or you are again engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.

I am getting bored with having to tell you the same thing over and over again. So, unless you can start supporting your claims with appropriate references/evidence, PLEASE, do " the fair and honorable thing" and take your pseudo-scientific nonsense elsewhere.
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
@RealityCheck
P.S. Here is a website that shows how to make a double slit out of paper;
http://www.instru...le-Slit/

Surely you are not trying to tell us that plasmonics play any part in such a setup?
f_darwin
not rated yet Jan 08, 2017
scientists at the Raman Research Institute and the Indian Institute of Science, both in Bangalore, India already covered this subject. all these behaviors are normal once mankind able to see photon, electron, nuclei and how they interact to give these result. until then all are assumption. MG1
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
LOL, I usually don't read RealityCheck's stuff, but "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results" is a real classic.

Jargon generator: http://www.scifii...nerator/

Maybe not quite as good as RC's! Hee hee...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
LOL, I usually don't read RealityCheck's stuff, but "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results" is a real classic.

Jargon generator: http://www.scifii...nerator/

Maybe not quite as good as RC's! Hee hee...

Scotty's (ST) technobabble made more sense - when he WASN'T changing the laws of physics...
drkrsmurthy
not rated yet Jan 08, 2017
I have a series of postulates on "Nature of Light", including the wave-particle duality of light that cover many variations on the double split experriments.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
Hi RNP. :)
...it says "the researchers employed a different kind of interferometer that makes use of plasmonics". I.e. Most interferometers DO NOT make us of plasmonics.
How can anyone purporting to have objective intellect and be following the scientific method be so patently obtuse/in-denial as you are being, RNP? Maybe the brainwashing has affected you beyond reversal, as is explained in the following observation re 'publication bias: http://phys.org/n...lse.html

You keep kneejerking subjectively/egoistically in denial of OBVIOUS implications, RNP.

And you ignore SALIENT SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN points:

- the plasmonics/near-filed effects are ALWAYS THERE in slit-surface topologies/configurations!

- these weren't considered when original early slit-experiments/results etc were first 'framed/explained, and so were ignored until RECENTLY.

- NOW 'modified' interferometers/slit-setups merely EXPLOIT/HIGHLIGHT them! :)

Get it now, RNP? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

LOL, I usually don't read RealityCheck's stuff, but "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results" is a real classic.

Jargon generator: http://www.scifii...nerator/

Maybe not quite as good as RC's! Hee hee...
Mate, don't you EVER learn to keep your mouth shut when you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of what's been going on around you? You keep sounding-off egotistically/nastily at ME, yet it has been YOU that didn't know about plasmoids in our Sun, non-Keplerian orbital regimes wherever non-solar-system-like mass distributions occur (such as in spiral galaies) etc! It has been ME that has educated YOU over the years because YOU were NOT UP TO SPEED in your reading avbout things which you knew NOTHING about, yet pontificated, bashed/insulted others despite YOU being the one woefully unprepared/incorrect in your own arrogance/ignorance yet being so 'certain' you were 'right'. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Not feeling tip-top I see. I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

Cher you are disrespecting the humans and scientists again. DaSchneib-Skippy has been shown to be correct all along and you/RC/Really/Skippy have been shown to have missed the physics boat. So don't be telling your betters to "keep your mouth shut" and calling them "IGNORANT" when they have gone to the science schools and you did not.

So maybe you should take some time out and go sit in the corner with a silly looking pointy cap on your head before I have to whack you with that Cajun Stick you was whining about.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
Hi Forum. :)

Ain't it amazing how the bot-voting ignoramus comes to the defense of his 'preferred science Skippys' whenever those Skippys are proven incompetent as he is? Truly, anyone needing to be 'defended' by a bot-voting ignoramus is already in enough trouble! Any "science Skippys" with 'friends' like that Ira-bot-voting-ignoramus has already lost all credibility. Their enabling/encouraging it only makes it more obvious that they are NO "science Skippys" worth an objective damn. You'd think if they had an 'ounce' of integrity/objectivity they would have long ago condemned this Ira bot-voting creep; but no, they have no integrity/objectivity left....that is what happens when they stoop to bot-voting ignoramuses in order to "win the ratings war" on a site they have sabotaged with bot-voting and unconscionable trolling etc. Too bad.

Nil desperandum!...There are still scientists of integrity/objectivity around....as the newer mainstream discoveries/reviews attest to. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2017
Nil desperandum!...There are still scientists of integrity/objectivity around....as the newer mainstream discoveries/reviews attest to. :)


Well okayeei Cher. Apology accepted, but you still need to apologize to DaSchneib-Skippy too personally for telling him "keep your mouth shut" and calling him "IGNORANT".
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2017
Well said, RC! Keep it up!
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2017
Well said, RC!
He does have the way with words, eh?

Keep it up!
What it is Cher? You think after 10 years he might leave up hanging? Non, keeping it up is all he knows how to do. Laissez les bons temps rouler
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2017
Hi Reg. :)
Well said, RC! Keep it up!
No problem, mate. I'm merely serving the true scientists and scientific method; whilst that Ira-bot-voting-ignoramus 'defends' his 'preferred science Skippys', despite he and they seeming to be totally unaware of the objectivity and integrity principles which the scientific method/true scientists dictates/follow. Never mind, they are and will remain irrelevant 'noisemakers', nasty and distracting yes, but irrelevant in the end.

Good luck in the New Year, Reg and everyone else genuinely following the scientific method in the interests of posterity/humanity and without any science-compromising personal/mercenary motives/biases. Cheers! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
Maybe even RealityCheck can learn something from this one. I hope lurkerz and regulars will learn something from it too.

Here's a discussion of near- and far-field effects from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipe...ar_field

From this we can see that the most ordinary of near-field effects in a multi-slit experiment is detecting the slit the particle traversed. Ordinarily, in the case of slit apparatuses that are not conductive, this is the only available near-field effect.

However, in the case where the apparatus is made of a conductive material (and gold is highly conductive), electromagnetic waves can create surface plasmons, and in this case the plasmons and the particles (in this case photons) can interact. Basically the conductive slit apparatus is acting as an antenna, which is a device for focusing electromagnetic fields upon a detector using various means including surface plasmons.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
[contd]
The researchers have used a particular type of antenna, in other words, that uses surface plasmon effects to affect the focus on the far-field measurement area, and the focus works in such a way that it promotes the sigmoid paths shown in the paper traversing all three slits in their experiment. Not all the time; but much more often than it happens with a non-conductive slit apparatus. Enough to raise it above the threshold of uncertainty and make it measurable.

And as far as I can tell no one has done this experiment before. This is a completely new result, and furthermore the researchers have then done the theoretical physics to show exactly why and how this happens, starting from Maxwell's equations and proceeding to quantum electrodynamics.

It is a most elegant experiment in quantum optics, and some solid theoretical physics that doesn't merely confirm what has been done before but explores new areas where we have little if any data.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
[contd]
Is this ground-breaking news? No, not really. And that's what makes it the most interesting. This is a nice, tight little piece of research from some consummate quantum optics experimenters and electrodynamic theorists. They've shown that Maxwell's equations work in some very unusual circumstances, and that Dirac's do too. Furthermore they've validated results from numerical simulations of both sets of equations in a single experiment. To top it all off they've validated results from experiment and theory for one of the hottest areas of research, surface plasmons from materials science.

We need to be going around checking these areas we haven't pushed into all the time. A lot of great science gets done there, but it doesn't get a lot of headlines. This is Real Science right down there in the trenches. Brick by brick the edifice grows.
RNP
5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
@RealityCheck
And you ignore SALIENT SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN points:

- the plasmonics/near-filed effects are ALWAYS THERE in slit-surface topologies/configurations!


Your condescending prattle is again entirely WRONG. Plasmonics/near-filed [sic] effects are only relevant in CONDUCTORS. They are irrelevant in non-conductors such as paper. If you want to claim otherwise, PROVE IT! Give some PERTINENT references! If you can support this silly claim with the appropriate evidence then I will ignore any further posts from you on the subject.
cardzeus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
What prevents an infinite loop occurring...?
HarryAudus
not rated yet Jan 09, 2017
I see that advances (have there been any lately?) in social discourse and mutual respect are still a long way behind advances in the physical sciences (irrespective of whether these are understood correctly or not).

No wonder science gets a bad name, and post-truth (or lies) is accepted by so many.

Come on, guys. What sort of world do you want us to have?
cardzeus
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
@thesciencedeniers - Anyone who believes in a coordinated conspiracy of academics should be forced to attend one faculty meeting and one granting agency meeting
swordsman
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2017
Another example of the ignorance of physicists above electromagnetic radiation. Such patterns are typical for microwave slit antennas, wherein the patterns are determined by Heaviside calculus. Antenna radiation, and light radiation, are electromagnetic and produce patterns of this type that are calculable.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
What prevents an infinite loop occurring...?
Infinitely low probability. ;)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
What prevents an infinite loop occurring...?

Nothing (well, the physical existence of the apparatus does put a limit on the number of possible loops). But every further loop is increasingly unlikely.

Small niggle: A truly infinite loop would be impossible to detect because it would never actually get to a detector and therefore never be part of an interference pattern.
cardzeus
Jan 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Mate, why do you keep doing this to yourself? You're YET AGAIN trying to "Tell your grandmother how to suck eggs"!

You just read wiki and assumed I didn't ALREADY know all that (and more); hence my insights/understandings in this matter which mainstreamers are only recently taking/highlighting SERIOUSLY to explain what is ACTUALLY going on in slit-surface etc setups!

You did this before: when you hadn't caught up with your wiki reading and I had to tell YOU about plasmoids in the Sun; and about NON-Keplerian orbital regimes where mass distributions were bot solar-system type (Keplerian) profile.

You are still 'wiki-ing' while I have been there; done that; gone ahead of the curve (in many fields, from cosmology to quantum).

Seriously, Da Schneib, it takes 'industrial strength' ignorance-arrogance-obtuseness for you to keep pretending you're in any way competent/timely enough to 'teach' me what I ALREADY knew long before you!

Learn your lesson, DS! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
Sure, @cardzeus. Good questions deserve good answers.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
Hi cardzeus. :)
Thanks @Da Schneib and @antialias
Mate, you would do well to get ALL the REAL background facts before kneejerk to acceptance of what issues from your 'heroes' here.

Pause to consider: It has been ME long pointing out the importance of plasmonics/near-filed effects to antialias, Da Schneib, RNP et al.

The above/previous articles tell of recent experiments where mainstream has come round to my insights and is therefore increasingly studying/highlighting the plasmonic/near-field factors determining what is observed in the slit-experimetal setups.

Which setups have been modified as necessary to exploit/highlight the various aspeects/effects of plasmonics/near-field phenomena to explain what is actually happening (and not just depending on the usual ABSTRACT mathematical quantum-statistical approach which explains NOTHING about what is actually happening (at the barrier/slit-edges and surfaces) during the experiment).

Think for yourself, mate. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2017
Hi cardzeus-Skippy from me too. How you are? I am good.

I think they are good questions too me. But "Beware" like Really-Skippy says. All you going to get for your trouble from him is a bunch of double-talk, gobbledygook and foolishment that he thinks sounds sciencey. About three postums later (if he sucks you in for that long) he will start repeating the same old stuffs he wrote before.

Oh yeah, I almost forget the important part I was going to say to you. If you don't want to be distracted by Really-Skippy's foolishment you can just slide the little slider thingy at the top to something like 2.5 or so and then you won't have to be bothered seeing his stuffs. That's a service I provide for the scientists and humans,,, for free,,,,, I don't charge for it. I also pass out silly looking pointy hats to couyons if you were wondering where some of these idiots got their unique headgear. They are free too but you really don't want one.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
Hi cardzeus. :)

See what I mean about not having all the facts, yet attacking those who do?

This Ira-bot-voting-ignoramus always comes to the defense of his 'falied heroes'. He employs misinformatin and trolling/bot-voting tactics in order to 'skew' the site discussions/ratings content/metrics in order to influence YOU and other newbies.

The problem arises when it is realized that this Ira-bot-voting troll IS a self-confessed ignoramus bent on 'defending' his 'preferred science Skippys', irrespective of correctness or not.

That is the 'version' of science method and objectivity/integrity principles that Ira-botl and his 'exploiters' apply here. Sad, isn't it!

So yes, be wary; not only of uncritical acceptance of all that issues from your own 'heroes' here, but also be wary of taking anything from that Ira-bot-voting-ignoramus as anything but the sad trollings of a sad case of irrelevant malice and stupidity allowed to infest science discourse.

Beware, think, mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
@cardzeus
Welcome
before you trust any posters, you should take time to learn how to validate information and insure those facts come from reputable sources (not made up or pseudoscience)

certain posters here are known for making stuff up based on their personal delusions - people like realitycheck, who said
I'm merely serving the true scientists and scientific method
See what I mean about not having all the facts, yet attacking those who do?
while refusing to accept even the basic requirements of the scientific method of validating your claim with evidence

he's posted 6,059 times and still can't show evidence for his arguments regarding his libelous claims of fatal flaws in another author's paper
that's more than 6 million wasted characters with absolutely no evidence at all

some helpful links:
http://www.auburn...ion.html

learn for free
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
Hi cardzeus. :)

Right on cue comes the 'other half' of that bot-voting-ignoramus-troll combo attempting to skew the discussion/metrics on a science site in order to 'defend' their 'heroes' whenever they are proven incorrect and me correct.

Note that this latest post by 'the other half' of the bot-voting idiot combo hasn't mentioned instances when I was correct and they attacked regardless because they had egg all over their faces after attacking despite being WRONG (and gullible just because the 'source' was 'reputable' etc).

Egs:

- Bicep2 Primordial Gravitational Waves 'discovery': They fell hook line and sinker for the crap/claims from that 'reputable source', despite my cautioning them to check it out properly FOR THEMSELVES because it was obviously crap.

- Plasmon/Near-field explanation for two-slit etc results: A similar bot-voting-trolling-attacking campaign is now under way by the same ratings/discussion-sabotaging duo and their egoistic exploiters.

Beware! :)
drkrsmurthy
not rated yet Jan 09, 2017
The researchers have consistently incorrectly understood and interpreted the wave nature of light in the form of electromagnetic waves as if the light travels like waves in water, in a pond or an ocean.

Let us use the word "ray or ray of light" to mean the electromagnetic wave form of light to represent the path the electromagnetic pulsations travel forward. The biggest confusion among most or many of the physicists, teachers of physics, including university professors, from the most reputed and celebrated universities to less well known universities, is in interpreting in pictures or cartoons and also in graphical forms. The very word "wave" seems to have created worldwide confusions and misunderstanding of the nature of light.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
@RC, after you said "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results" it was over. What you can never stand is to have your technobabble exposed. The fact that you insist on making fake-condescending posts afterward simply proves I'm right: you're a poser.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience fodera sam you am
to skew the discussion/metrics on a science site
science is about being able to prove a valid scientific point with evidence

what i just provided was an evidence based fact that can be validated by simply checking
and now it is 6,060 posts with false claims, opinion from delusion and zero evidence

you have yet to make a statement (especially about BICEP) that is valid, let alone verifiable or with any evidence

so if this is untrue and you've provided evidence, then it should be easily proven by you

so lets see what you can provide to cardzeus by simply posting the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws you claim to have seen in the BICEP study

i know you will simply cry about mistreatment, skewing metrics, bot-voting or some other distraction from the point, but it is all a lie to distract from your lack of evidence

so... per our agreement :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC, after you said "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results" it was over. What you can never stand is to have your technobabble exposed. The fact that you insist on making fake-condescending posts afterward simply proves I'm right: you're a poser.
You keep conveniently failing to mention that I have been CORRECT all along, despite your not understanding and calling it "technobabble".

And it is YOU that keeps posting your OWN "condescending" posts at/about ME, pretending to be "teaching" ME things which I obviously already knew LONG before and BETTER than you, even after you read up on wiki!

You just 'wiki' stuff and regurgitate it and then pretend to "know" what is correct, even when you are WRONG yet so CERTAIN while insulting. Too many times now, mate!

What I pointed out, for so long, is NOW being explored/exploited by mainstream rewiewers/experimenters, as I suggested.

Be fair. :)
cardzeus
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Thanks for the advice. Just so you guys know I have a PhD in Physics (quasicrystals/surface science), however I am not an expert in all aspects of physics, hence the question. I know who I can trust for decent answers on here :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2017
@cardzeus
The word "trust" applied to anyone posting on this site is an oxymoron.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
@CZ, obviously you have the understanding to ask a good question, so it seems that your degree in materials physics has served you well. I'd tell you to keep asking the good questions but it seems you already know that. I think you got my quip about infinite improbability. If you liked that one I suggest you read some Neal Stephenson. I think you'd find The Diamond Age pretty amusing. OTGH, you may already have read him.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2017
I am not an expert in all aspects of physics

I'd be surprised if anyone is (and, of course, this goes for mathematics, chemistry, and basically any other field of science as well). The amount of stuff that is in the human knowledge base is so vast that the best you can hope for is to become an expert in one tiny part, proficient in a small field and a generalist in a wider area with a rudimentary knowledge in some other areas.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
@RC, gimme a break. Let's remember here, you said "plasmonic/near-field effects are crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit-type' experiment physics/results" and failed to support it.

You begin with "plasmonic/near field effects" which shows that you understand neither, since you equate them. You continue by claiming that these are a "crucial 'common factor' in all 'slit type experiment[s]," when most multi-slit experiments are done with non-conducting slit apparatus, which precludes plasmons.

You're caught in the toils of your own jargon generator, trying to associate two unrelated concepts neither of which you are capable of comprehending. It fools no one yet you continue to pose. Why do you bother? Do you seriously think anyone on the physics & science site doesn't see how you operate? It's not working. Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and never noticing it didn't work the first time.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. Before proceeding with our exchange: I wish you/yours/all a safe, intellectually rewarding, New Year. :)

Re your latest, I have to say you seem to also be a perfect demonstration of the 'brainwashing by publication bias' afflicting unwary/gullible scientists/journalists/reviewers etc; as highlighted by the following study/modeling:

http://phys.org/n...lse.html

Late-to-the-party 'wiki-ing' is NO substitute for longterm objective cross-disciplinary thinking, 'connecting the dots' FOR YOURSELF. Why do you 'believe' what you just 'wiki-ed' is STILL valid or complete/up-to-date assumptions/interpretations/knowledge/explanations etc?

And YOU CLAIM I "failed to support" it....despite YOU just reading PO articles where mainstreamer experimenters are NOW exploring/highlighting/exploiting/confirming what I HAVE LONG POINTED OUT!

Brainwashing/bias must be strong for you to be-denial' of THE FACT mainstream IS NOW SUPPORTING it!

Try. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Actually it was Feynman who predicted it all along. On Earth.

Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with publication bias, or any other kind of bias. It's an experiment, not an analysis of a data set.

And I don't see you explaining how it works.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)

His 'many-paths' lines/loops/vertices abstraction is just that, abstraction. It explains nothing as to actual physical mechanisms/phenomena involved which produces the 'outcomes' 'statistically/algorithmically' 'calculated as to probability etc.

No,mate; my allusion there was to the GENERAL "publication bias" effect which insidiously/imperceptibly 'entrenchies in mindsets' such that mere 'hypotheses/claims/interpretations OF data/observations' are eventually/carelessly believed and regurgitated as if they were proven/accepted 'facts'. This is also something I've been pointing out has been happening with cosmological etc physical 'peer review' literature; and unwary 'acolytes' (such as yourself and 'journalists' etc) then treat as 'fact base' in their own further contribution to long-obvious (to me) 'publication bias' effect.

I HAVE been explaining over YEARS; but 'usual crowd' was ignoring/dismissing it! I will explain ALL in my COMPLETE ToE publication. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

I HAVE been explaining over YEARS; but 'usual crowd' was ignoring/dismissing it!
You must not be doing a good job explaining him. I been seeing you do this explaining for years and still have not seen you bring someone around

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The "usual crowd" is everybody in the world except you. What does that say to you?

I will explain ALL in my COMPLETE ToE publication.
You still fantasizing about that? Do you dress up in a lab coat while you pretending how much fun it would be to really be able to be the scientist?

Cher, you could not even get past the Earthman Club (all one member of them) (Read it here: http://earthlingclub.com/ ) You know you are not really going to write a book about toes and everything.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
It's called the path integral approach. As you'd know if you actually knew anything about physics.

There isn't any publication bias in an experiment.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
It's called the path integral approach. As you'd know if you actually knew anything about physics.
The love of jargon blinds to the actual mening in physical terms as distinct from abstract maths-analytical construct terms. Haven't you learned these lessons yet? The 'abstract map' is NOT the 'actual physical territory'.
There isn't any publication bias in an experiment.
That is a separate issue. The 'publication bias' problem relates to publishing/treating hypotheses etc as if they were 'facts'.

Please try to discern the actual context/problem alluded to. As far as above experiment is concerned, I pointed out it confirms what I have been pointing out re plasmonic/near-field effects in ALL 'slit-surface-edge TOPOLOGICAL situations.

Two-slit, One-slit-and-blind-groove, three-slit, etc modifications of original two-slit experiment involves such AT THE BARRIER STAGE, and affects what is 're-radiated' therefrom to screen.

Discern/Learn, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Hi Forum.

Note how the Ira-bot-voting ignoramus confirms that the usual crowd didn't understand the science which is correct, and so assumes that their non-understanding somehow justifies his/their remaining ignorant out of troll spite because they didn't listen and learn when they had been given the chances by me over the years. Poor excuse rationale for remaining an ignorant and malicious bot-voting troll bothering posters who have been correct on the science all along, hey? Only a determined bot-voting ignoramus could spin that to himself/his exploiters, as somehow being in any way 'scientific or objective' about the content posted. Povre, povre, irrelevant bot-voting ignoramus! Even more povre are those that have so little integrity of character/intellect that they attack those who have been correct all along and instead prefer to give that bot-voting ignoramus '5s' to help him 'hide' the site discussion/posts via readers' 'filters' by skewing the ratings metrics. Sad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2017
The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is not "jargon."

An experiment is not a hypothesis.

This grows boring.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is not "jargon."

An experiment is not a hypothesis.

This grows boring.
You're so easily bored/distracted by/from the real physical insights, and prefer your abstraction/jargon based arguments while missing the actual physical reality being explained to you. Why keep doing this? You used those same distraction/irrelevant tactics during those other times when I was correct all along and you incorrect all along yet accusing me of being a 'liar' and 'making stuff up' etc etc. Does it ever enter your ego-driven mind that you are just plain trolling your ego-based 'tactics' while missing the real science being pointed out for your benefit? Do you, and all those other ego-driven types never learn? Didn't the lessons from Bicep2, and all the other instances when I tried to put you on the path to the correct science, not get through at all?

Your curt comments are meaningless out of context. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2017
Guys, it has long been a conclusion of science that a particle such as an electron may pass thru' all points in the universe on its way from A to B. Interference patterns are actually the sum of all possible paths with a bias towards the most likely. The reason for this is explained in my ToE as detailed in "The Situation of Gravity". These experiments highlighting exotic loops as light paths are merely an illustration of a long-known phenomenon, so why all the hoo-ha?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2017
Hi Forum.

Note how the Ira-bot-voting ignoramus BLAH, BLAH and a few more BLAHS that everybody already seen.


@ Forum. How you Skippys and Skippettes are? I am good, thanks for asking. Ohyeei. That Really-Skippy sure does have the BIG mental condition, eh? That's why I skewered him so you don't have to be bothered with his foolishment unless you are just looking for some fun goofy stuffs he writes to keep things light.

Even more povre are those that have so little integrity of character/intellect that they attack those who have been correct all along and instead prefer to give that bot-voting ignoramus '5s' to help him 'hide' the site discussion/posts via readers' 'filters' by skewing the ratings metrics. Sad.
You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. I did not do any of you volumetrifications. I skewered you/RC/Really/Skippy/Sam/troll/Fedora/Earthman of the Earthman Playhouse. (But if I could volumetricate, I would sure do that to you Cher.)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2017
@reg the pseudoscience TROLL
The reason for this is explained in my ToE as detailed in "The Situation of Gravity".
then considering your abject failure to sell it to reputable science and it's free electronic dissemination, you should now be easily able to link and show the evidence for:
-orbits
-tides
-your claim above
-the failure of observation or evidence for your claims

.

.

@pseudoscience sam the fodera idiot
Hi Da Schneib. :)
continuing your trend of making claims without evidence, this makes 6,067 posts with no evidence or ability to validate your claims

that is over 6 million characters wasted

as noted by Ira - "You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy"
that is confirmed by simply reviewing your posts and the number of characters with absolutely no evidence at all whatsoever to support your claims

per our agreement...
Hat1208
5 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2017
@RC and @Reg

Maybe you two could work on your ToE's together so that we can quit doing science and just read your combined paper that will explain everything.

Thanks in advance
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2017
Hi Hat1208. :)
@RC and @Reg

Maybe you two could work on your ToE's together so that we can quit doing science and just read your combined paper that will explain everything.
Why would I want to collaborate with anyone else? I have already worked for decades to COMPLETE the Cosmological Theory; starting 'from scratch' with reality-based (not maths/metaphysics based as do other theories) axioms/postulates; covering the FULL range of physical phenomena ranging from 'infinitesimal' to 'infinite' scale, in a continuously consistent manner.

So far, mine is the only REALITY-based, COMPLETE, theory on offer (soon). All other theories, mainstream or non-mainstream, are PARTIAL ones (which invariably break down beyond their respective 'domains of applicability' and thus showing them to BE only PARTIAL theories, not complete).

I leave you/others to argue 'partial' perspectives/theories. I'lI work towards publishing the reality-based complete ToE insights (just for you---lol). :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jan 11, 2017
Hi Forum.

Amazing, isn't it? Our resident bot-voting ignoramus thinks an intellectual state demonstrating independent objective scientific observation/understanding of the extant reality phenomena, by adhering strictly to Scientific Method principles and integrity, is somehow 'problematic' ("BIG mental condition", as the bot-voting ignoramus put it).

It makes no difference to the sad bot-voting ignoramus, or to his even-sadder unconscionable/cowardly ego-tripping and/or cow-towing 'exploiters' of his trolling and ratings skewing, that in recent years numerous PO articles on Cosmology, Astro and Quantum physics effectively (if belatedly) highlighted/confirmed MY OWN longstanding observations/insights, on many fronts; which I have been pointing out in many posts over the years (most of which were trolled/sabotaged and ratings-skewed and ignored/missed therefore by the 'usual troll crowd' still attacking the messenger who was correct on the science all along.

Povre Ira. Sad.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2017
@RC and @Reg

Maybe you two could work on your ToE's together so that we can quit doing science and just read your combined paper that will explain everything.

Thanks in advance

Sorry, but mine was done years ago, and has since been completely vindicated by "new" discoveries. Perhaps you should consider alternatives to establishment doctrine, as it demonsrably doesn't work.....
moroplogo
not rated yet Jan 15, 2017
Would it be possible to determine, in the case of two slits for example, which path would have followed a photon, namely the passage through the slot A, the passage through the slot B and the multiple loops A-> B-> A or B -> A-> B, by using for example a detection system with a femtosecond temporal resolution ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.