What decides where a photon hits a screen? The photon wave spreads to many screen points, but it only ever hits one point. That point is random, like a lottery where everyone has a chance, but according to quantum theory, the hit chance is higher where the wave is stronger. More precisely, the photon wave defines a probability to hit at each point, based on its strength. These probabilities add up to one, so it always hits somewhere, but exactly where is a free choice that doesn’t depend on any physical history. Quantum theory then explains the two-slit experiment by this mechanism:
1. The photon wave spreads through both slits.
2. It then interferes with itself to give a net strength at many screen points.
3. This strength squared is the photon’s probability to hit each point.
4. Where it actually hits is then randomly chosen from these probabilities.
5. The result is the interference pattern seen.
After the photon wave spreads through both slits, its positive or negative amplitudes combine at the screen to give a net strength, whose square predicts its probability to hit at each point. A random value between zero and one then decides where it actually hits, which no physical history can predict.
This mechanism predicts the interference pattern seen, but if quantum waves are imaginary, how can it do this? If quantum theory is imaginary, physicists are no different from shamans who see the future in their imagination! Physics isn’t real if quantum waves aren’t real so to avoid this, let them be processing waves spreading on a network that restart in physical events. Quantum waves then predict physical events because they cause them but if so, what decides where a processing wave restarts?
A processing wave reaching a screen made of matter will overload it at many points. They will then reboot, to request a server restart, so the server response will be either:
1. Access. The server accepts the request to restart at that point, so it no longer supports the rest of the wave, which collapses. 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 just 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 outside our domain. When many points reboot, the first one to access a server restart wins the prize of being the photon, leaving the rest of the wave to wither on the grid. What decides which point wins this lottery? It is expected that those points that access the server more are more likely to restart it.
According to quantum theory, a photon wave’s probability to hit a point depends on its strength at that point squared. Light is a sine wave, so its amplitude squared is its power, which for a processing wave, requires more server access. If positive and negative amplitudes cancel at the server, the net power of a wave decides the number of instructions needed, and hence server access. It follows that points where teh wave has more power will access the server more and so are more likely to restart it. The probabilities to hit of quantum theory are then based on the net amplitude squared because for a processing wave, that power decides access to the server that restarts it in a physical event. The strange mechanics of quantum theory become sensible if a photon is a processing wave!
To recap, photon instances overload many screen points but which one actually restarts the wave depends on server access that is to us unknown, i.e. random. 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 wave spreads instances through both slits.
b. Instances that reach the same screen point by different paths interfere.
c. The first instance to restart its server is where the photon hits.
d. Which instance restarts its server depends on the power of the wave at each point that decides server access.
The mysteries of Young’s experiment (3.1.3) are now resolved. How can a photon go through two slits but still arrive at one screen point? A particle can’t do this, but a processing wave spreading on a network can 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 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 would? A physical wave doesn’t hit at a point, but one process with one server has to restart at one point.
A detector put in one of the two slits only fires half the time, but it 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, as the server is attending to instances in the other slit the rest of the time. 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 it can only restart in one, as decided by a server that attends equally to all its instances.
This mechanism now answers questions like:
a. Does one photon go through both slits at once? Yes, photon instances go through both slits.
b. Does it hit the screen at one point? Yes, the photon process restarts at one screen point.
c. Did it take a particular path? Yes, the instance that restarted the photon 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 same results, but the first is a recipe with no rationale, while the second has reasons based on processing. What couldn’t be understood fifty years ago now makes sense based on network processing.
Another mystery of light that has baffled scientists for centuries is how it travels.
|
Table 3.1. Quantum mechanics in processing wave terms |
|
|
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 that a processing wave restarts in a physical event depends on server access that varies as the square of its amplitude at a point in space |
|
2. Interference. If a quantum event can occur in two alternate ways, the positive and negative amplitudes combine, i.e. they interfere |
2. Interference. If a processing wave reaches a point by alternate paths, the positive and negative amplitudes combine, i.e. they interfere |
|
3. Observation. Observing one path lets the other occur without interference, so the outcome probability is the simple sum of the alternatives, i.e. 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, i.e. the interference is lost |