Abstract: **That photons delocalize in flight was so obvious, Huyghens described them as waves four centuries ago. That’s reinforced both from the math of Quantum Mechanics, and traditional diffraction math. Let alone 2023 Quantum Entanglements of Pions**.* Time to erect bolder hypotheses to try to understand what’s really going on.*

***

That a photon is received as a photon, a single localized energy-momentum jolt, or quantum, explains the photoelectric effect’s characteristics, so we should accept that localized impact. This was Einstein’s hypothesis, and because it explains the photoelectric effect, one should assume it to be true. Einstein deserved his Nobel… And indeed, since then many experiments, including those of Nobel Haroche, have dealt with the single photon impacting or influencing something… In a very localized way.

**HOWEVER, localization on impact doesn’t mean that, in “flight” the photon, or any particle is localized as much [1]**. It just means that the photon behaved as if it had… “collapsed”. Einstein assumed localization in flight, I call it Einstein’s error. Modern QFT has discreetly strayed away from Einstein, as the “particle” has become an excitable Quantum Field (hence nonlocal) subjected to renormalizing perturbation theory. Moreover, Basic Quantum Mechanics assumes delocalization, but then claims only the math delocalize, not the whatever-is-going-on physically, about which CIQ (Copenhagen Interpretation Quantum) can say nothing.

Yes, maybe CIQos can say nothing, but smarter minds can make hypotheses, and then try to find out if observed effects derive from these hypotheses… Details that normal Quantum mechanics does not predict, like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

The evidence, from diffraction, is to the contrary of the gratuitous and unnecessary Einstein’s in-flight-localization hypothesis. Both from the grossest observations (namely deflection by a pinhole/slit) and from the way the mathematical treatment of said pinhole/slit works… Because those classical mathematics of diffraction work, indeed, but they assume DELOCALIZATION… to make the computation. So the computation’s result being correct, one feels inclined to believe that its mathematical axiom, delocalization, is also correct… as a physical axiom.

Recently published research (February 2023) shows complicated quantum entanglement transmission in cascade between pairs of unrelated and distinguishable pions of opposite charges, which thereafter interfere at a large distance, enabling the exploration of gluon geometry inside nucleons… More evidence of extreme delocalization, and a new sort of what I call Quantum Interaction.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2023/02/05/nonlocal-quantum-entanglement-of-different-particles-used-to-detect-gluon-geometry/

As seen below the usual classical computation for diffraction assumes re-emission, thus delocalization, all along the throat of the slit:

Patrice Ayme

[1] SQPR assumes that “particles” in flight don’t really exist (de facto, so does QFT). The “particles” instead are of type NL + L, where NL is the NonLinear part, and L the Linear part (corresponding to the amplitudes of traditional Quantum Mechanics). L guides NL during dispersion (outward momentum from the singularization/particle state… the opposite of collapse, when the momentum goes towards the singularity). A mathematical description may involve a wave acceleration proportional to its amplitude… So that L can become unstable and grow into a NL, after interacting with another L from another “particle”.

How localized is NL? The Quantum Eraser experiment of Kim and Al., in 1999, indicates that NL is somewhat localized, at least in its apparatus… But it’s very far from a particle. Moreover, as NL feeds L, so to speak, one expects NL to get ever more nonlocalized…

Tags: Delocalization, Einstein, In Flight, Particles

February 14, 2023 at 11:34 am |

Couple of links I’ve saved over the years;

Click to access 2008CChristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

https://forums.fqxi.org/d/1344-a-challenge-to-quantized-absorption-by-experiment-and-theory-by-eric-stanley-reiter

LikeLike

February 15, 2023 at 2:25 am |

Hi Brodix, and thanks!

The first link didn’t seem to work.

The second link seems to be a revival of Planck’s own objection to Einstein 1905 photoelectric theory… which was… overruled! There is zillion evidence of quantized absorption…

LikeLike

February 16, 2023 at 1:43 am |

Patrice,

Here is the abstract and intro;

“Abstract

The present paper deals with the effect of dissipation on the propagation of wave packets governed by a wave equation of Jeffrey type. We show that all packets undergo a shift of the central frequency (the mode with maximal amplitude) towards the lower frequencies (‘‘redshift’’ in theory of light or ‘‘baseshift’’ in acoustics). Packets with Gaussian apodization function do not change their shape and remain Gaussian but undergo redshift and spread. The possible applications of the results are discussed.

Ó 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Jeffrey’s equation; Dissipation; Wave packets; Gaussian apodization function; Redshift 1. Introduction

The propagation of waves in linear dissipative systems is well studied but most of the investigations are concerned with the propagation of a single-frequency wave. On the other hand, in any of the practical situations, one is faced actually with a wave packet, albeit with a very narrow spread around the central frequency. This means that one should take a special care to separate the effects of dispersion and dissipation on the propagation of the wave packet from the similar effects on a single frequency signal.

The effect of dissipation of the propagation of wave packets seems important because their constitution can change during the evolution and these changes can be used to evaluate the dissipation.

Especially elegant is the theory of propagation of packets with Gaussian apodization function.”

The premise of the second link seemed similar to your point, that the quantization is a function the absorption required to measure it, but that it doesn’t travel as quantized bundles.

“There is zillion evidence of quantized absorption…”

So, added together, it would seem we are sampling a wave front, not sensing individual photons having traveled billions of lightyears.

LikeLike

February 16, 2023 at 5:50 pm |

Photoelectric effect as described by Hertz and elucidated by Einstein, shows impact of light is localized and transmitted to a localized electron… This is how solar pannels work… Cataract too… 😉

This was the really original paper of Einstein 1905… He got the Nobel for it, let’s not remove his glory… although I pointed out that he overshot, the main point is correct:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/

LikeLike

February 15, 2023 at 5:20 am |

Difference with QM?

LikeLike

February 16, 2023 at 5:45 pm |

Ian Miller

The de Broglie and Bohm pilot wave, and my variant, the guidance wave, have no problem with interference, and in fact it has been shown that the photon only goes through one slit so you need a wave to get interference. That quantum mechanics does not predict dark matter is hardly surprising – it does not predict any particles -it takes them as givens.

LikeLike

February 16, 2023 at 5:52 pm |

You say: “it has been shown that the photon only goes through one slit ” Hmmm… News to me. Is that from Quantum Trajectory Theory? QTT seems to me to assume what it pretends to prove. Feynman does the same with what he calls relativistic mass: assume the result, then prove it…

LikeLike

February 16, 2023 at 5:52 pm |

Ian Miller

Patrice Ayme Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173.

LikeLike

February 16, 2023 at 5:54 pm |

Dear Ian: As you are thanked in the following paper you should be aware that: Quantum Trajectories a la Bohm don’t resist experiments… There are photon trajectories where De Broglie-Bohm predicts none… Possible conclusion? One has to go back to De Broglie’s original “Double Solution” theory… that assigns a width to the photon… In any case, and argument for delocalization, aka “wave”…

http://article.internationaljournalofphysics.com/…/ijp…

LikeLike

February 17, 2023 at 6:11 am

Ian Miller

Not sure what your point is here.There is a flaw in the logic of disproving Bohm in that Bohm argues the waves from the two slits cannot pass through each other. What Peng does means they never meet.

Click to access ijp-9-3-1.pdf

LikeLike

February 17, 2023 at 6:16 am

In:

Click to access ijp-9-3-1.pdf

Apparently they found waves/photons pass where nothing is supposed to happen according to Bohm (the triangle between the slits). This suggests that one has to go back to De Broglie’s Double Solution, where photon is NOT a particle (a la Einstein–> Bohm)… But a hump… Or soliton… I personally believe particles are more rogue waves than solitons….

***Experimental Study of Bohm’s Trajectory Theory —

Comprehensive Double Slit Experiments (2)

Hui Peng*

*Corresponding author:

Received March 05, 2021; Revised April 11, 2021; Accepted April 23, 2021

Abstract Young’s double slit experiments, which represent the mystery of quantum mechanics, have been interpreted by quantum probability waves and by de Broglie-Bohm trajectories/pilot waves. Computer simulations of Bohm’s theory predict that (1)

trajectories cannot cross, and (2) there is a triangle-shape area behind the double slit, in which there is no trajectory, i.e., no photons. In this article, we report the observations of novelcomprehensive double slit experiments, which show that

trajectories exist and cross in the triangular area.We show new phenomena that, in 2D cross double slit experiments and which way 2D cross double slit experiments, photons propagate along trajectories in the far field, and behave as particle and distribute as wave.Keywords: double slit experiments, comprehensive double slit experiment, cross double slit experiments,

which way double slit experiments, which way cross double slit experiments, de Broglie-Bohm theory, trajectory

theory

LikeLike

February 17, 2023 at 6:12 am |

Ian Miller

Not sure what your point is here.There is a flaw in the logic of disproving Bohm in that Bohm argues the waves from the two slits cannot pass through each other. What Peng does means they never meet.

LikeLike