What decides where a photon hits a screen? Light waves arrive at many screen points but for some reason, each photon only hits at one point. Quantum mechanics says that point is randomly chosen from the possibilities, so it’s like a lottery where many points have a chance, but some more than others as the probability to hit is higher where the wave is strong. The probabilities add up to one, so the photon always hits somewhere, but exactly where can’t be physically predicted. The quantum mechanism that explains the two-slit experiment is then as follows:
1. The photon wave equation describes how it spreads through both slits.
2. The wave then interferes with itself at the screen, to give a net amplitude at many points.
3. This amplitude squared is the probability the photon will physically hit at each point.
4. Where the photon actually hits is then randomly chosen from all the probabilities.
5. The result is the interference pattern seen.
This mechanism explains the observed result as follows:
The photon wave spreads through both slits, then its positive or negative amplitudes combine at the screen to predict its probability to hit at each point. A random value between zero and one then decides the point where it actually hits, which no physical history can predict.
This logic is useful because it predicts where photons will probably hit, but physics calls photon waves imaginary, so how can they predict this? Are physicists like shamans who dream the future? The alternative now explored is that photon waves are real and predict physical events because they cause them. This is possible if they are processing waves spreading on a network that restart at a point in physical events. What then would decide where such waves restart?
A processing wave reaching a screen is expected to overload it at many points. If they then reboot and request a process restart, the server response will be either:
1. Access. The server restarts its processing at that point, so it no longer supports other points of the wave, which collapses it. This then is a physical event at that point. OR,
2. No access. The server doesn’t respond that cycle, as it is busy elsewhere, so the point drops the process and carries on. This then was a potential physical event that didn’t happen.
Quantum collapse is then random to us because it is a winner takes all lottery run by a server we can’t observe. When many points reboot, the first to access a server restart locks out the others to win the prize of being the photon, leaving other instances to wither on the grid. What decides which point wins this lottery? This model expects the points with more server access to win more.
Why then is the photon’s probability to hit its wave amplitude squared? Light is a sine wave, so its amplitude squared is its power, which increases server access for a processing wave. If positive and negative amplitudes cancel locally, a photon wave gets more server access where it is stronger, so it restarts there more often. The probabilities to hit of quantum mechanics are then based on the wave amplitude squared because a wave’s power decides its access to the server that restarts the photon at a point in a physical event. The strange mechanics of quantum theory are then sensible if a photon is a processing wave.
To recap, photon instances overload many screen points, but where it actually restarts depends on server access that is to us random, as quantum mechanics says. Even so, the amplitude squared of the wave predicts its probability to hit at each point because that defines access to the server that restarts the photon. The two-slit experiment can now be described in processing terms as follows:
a. The photon processing wave spreads instances through both slits.
b. Instances that reach the same screen point by different paths interfere.
c. When many screen points overload, the first to access the photon server is where it hits.
d. The photon’s probability to hit at each point depends on its amplitude squared because that determines access to the server that restarts it.
The mysteries of Young’s experiment, discussed earlier (3.1.3), are now resolved. How can one photon go through two slits but still arrive at one screen point? A particle can’t do this but a processing wave can spread on a network and still restart at a point. How can sending one photon at a time through two slits still produce an interference pattern? Again, one particle can’t go through two slits, or interfere with itself, but a processing wave can. Why then does light come in little photon packets, as Einstein showed? Physical waves don’t come in little packets but processing needs a fundamental process, and that is a photon. Why doesn’t the photon wave smear over a screen as a wave should? A physical wave doesn’t hit at a point, but a fundamental process with one server has to restart at one point.
If a detector is put in one of the two slits of Young’s experiment, it only fires half the time, but that isn’t because half the photons go through each slit. Photon instances always go through both slits, but the detector only wins the quantum lottery for server access half the time, because the rest of the time, the server is attending to instances in the other slit. Likewise, detectors in both slits fire equally often, but it isn’t because photon particles choose between the slits equally. Again, each photon always takes both slits but can only restart in one, as decided by a server that attends equally to all its instances.
This model now answers questions like:
a. Does a photon go through both slits at once? Yes, photon instances go through both slits.
b. Does it arrive at one screen point? Yes, the photon process restarts at one screen point.
c. Did it take a particular path? Yes, the instance that caused the restart took a specific path.
d. Did it also take all other possible paths? Yes, other instances, now disbanded, took every path.
Table 3.1 below compares Feynman’s summary of quantum mechanics (Feynman et al., 1977), p37-10 with a processing wave approach. Both approaches predict the observed results, but the first is a recipe with no rationale, while the second has reasons based on quantum processing. Given no physical basis for quantum mechanics, physics invented the myth of wave-particle dualism, that a photon can be a wave and a particle at different times. It is a myth because by definition, a wave depends on a medium while a particle depends only on its own substance. Wave-particle dualism, like the mind-body dualism of Descartes, is an impossible union of incompatible choices. A photon can no more be a wave and a particle than I can have my cake and eat it too, so that a photon is always a wave, even when it hits a screen point, is preferable.
The next section addresses a mystery of light that has baffled scientists for centuries, namely how it travels.
|
Table 3.1. Quantum theory as server access |
|
|
Quantum Mechanics |
Processing Wave |
|
1. Existence. The probability a quantum entity exists is the absolute square of its complex quantum amplitude value at a point in space |
1. Existence. The probability a processing wave exists in a physical event depends on the square of its amplitude that defines server access at a point in space |
|
2. Interference. If a quantum event can occur in two alternate ways, the positive and negative amplitudes combine, so they interfere |
2. Interference. If a processing wave reaches a point by alternate network paths, the positive and negative values combine, so they interfere |
|
3. Observation. Observing one path lets the other occur without interference, so the outcome probability is the simple sum of the alternatives, so the interference is lost |
3. Observation. Observing a processing wave on one path lets the other occur without interference, so the outcome probability is the simple sum of the alternatives, so the interference is lost |