The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Georgina Woodward

Proposal. Half silvered mirrors are able to divide photons into a detectable portion, detected as a particle. That particle is still called a photon despite having undergone 'amputation'. For clarity it shall be called a cut photon body Also a sub detectable portion is formed having wave like character. Which will be called a sub-photon member. Identified by causing wave interference when recombined with the portion it was split from (the cut photon body)). The sub-photon member is an existing element of noumenal Object reality. Source of the phenomenon of detection indicating wave interference has happened. This can explain observed outcomes, rather than needing to use superposition for explanation.

Georgina Woodward

Results summary and explanation: For a dud bomb there is always photon body and sub photon member reunion and interference which always gives a C detection no matter which part took which path. For a live bomb; No photon was detected (50% of tests). Lower path taken by cut photon body Explosion! Or Cut photon body takes upper path. As usual chance of being deflected at mirror or not. The photon detected at C (25% of tests). The photon detected at D (25% of tests).

Conclusion: The photon splitting proposition can explain observed outcomes, rather than needing to use superposition for explanation.

Interaction free detection is a misnomer. As this result relies upon the sub photon member being taken out of 'circulation' at the bomb. So it can not reunite and interfere. That enabling the chance of D detector detection

Georgina Woodward

Consistent with-1. Detecting a photon always on only one path after a bean splitter. This is the cut photon body producing the same detection as an entire photon that has not encountered a beam splitter.2.No detection on other path. Sub photon member not directly detectable. 3.An interference pattern being observed only after both open paths are brought together. Showing something, not detectable as a photon, does travel along the 'empty' path if not blocked. This might be environmental remnants from photon behavior or considered part of an entire photon, that accompanies it. What matters is that there is something actual (a noumenal reality) traveling the path. The actual effect, the material interference pattern it causes, can be observed (phenomenal reality) and identifies it. Like identifying an animal by its footprint rather than trapping the animal itself.4 consistent with double slit experiments.

Georgina Woodward

It was not explicitly set out but given in the Wikipedia article linked; the reason D gets no detections when the bomb is dud, (same as if not there/ no obstruction ) is destructive interference.

Proposed explanation: When a live bomb is obstructing the path, the sub photon member is halted so can not participate in destructive interference.

Same applies for this apparatus without a bomb but a mirror placed before the top mirror, deflecting the beam to a third detector. This also allows D detections. However rather than it being a non local effect on a beam that has not encountered the inserted mirror, it is due to deflection of the sub photon members to the third detector. So, being unable to destructively interfere.

Georgina Woodward

The proposed unequal splitting not only casts doubt on interference free testing, It puts to rest the quandary over when a photon decides to be a particle and when a wave. Subject of many real and thought experiments. The decision isn't being made.

Georgina Woodward

On Interaction Free Testing and Photon Divisibility

https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0020

Are Photons Fundamental and Indivisible?

https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034

Georgina Woodward

In the first paper an experiment is set out, with the usual results predicted. The explanation of why those results are going to be obtained is different; fitting the hypothesis. Leading to the conclusions: The photon splitting proposition can be used for prediction and explanation. As a viable alternative to use of superposition. Interaction free detection is a misnomer. Re D detector's detection. I haven't clearly stated that destructive interference is lost and that's why a detection can be made.

In the second paper a new experiment is given, Three possible outcomes are stated. 1 and 3 supportive of the hypothesis, 2 is not. No prediction is given. My prediction is outcome 3. This apparatus allows discerning of a photon that is detected as such but is incomplete from n entire photon. The former is shown not to just be an ordinary photon in particle state, by its subsequent behaviour past next 1/2 mirror.

Georgina Woodward

Simply, an entire photon will behave the same each time it encounters a half silvered mirror; having the capability of being subsequently found to express a wave interference pattern when tested. This will be so if an un-reunited photon is entire but just in a definite particle state. The cut photon body, on the other hand, that has not been reunited with the severed sub photon member has permanently lost the ability to be found showing wave interference. So it is made to encounter another half silvered mirror after the first and prevention of reunion. No wave interference pattern when paths are joined.

Even if the hypothesis is wrong , the experiment is demonstrating photon nature; making it valuable demonstration tool.

Georgina Woodward

About outcome 2. interference is obtained after path joining at second interferometer with non re-united photon input. The photons are not behaving as if they have some part missing, responsible for the interference pattern being formed. Does not support photon partition hypothesis. However the partition could be into an indivisible photon and its separable environmental effect. No interference if paths not joined. However the environmental effect can regenerate and participate in future separation and reunion; giving interference pattern. In that case the name 'sub photon guest' (of the photon) seems more fitting than 'sub photon member'. Same argument re interaction free testing, only using the guest model. So too explanation of seeming non local effect when an opaque barrier is put in one of the paths instead, preventing destructive interference. Only using the sub photon guest model, instead of the sub photon member.

Georgina Woodward

Are Photons Fundamental and Indivisible? https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034

Outcome 2 or is the difference between having sub photon guests or members being separated from the photon body. How to show the presence of guest/members rather than non local photons in superposition: Make a detector by passing photons though half silvered mirror and not reuniting paths. Then join with path from a different half silvered mirror photon input encounter. Different from usual reunion giving interference every time. Now there can be 2 photon bodies brought together or two sub photon guests/members (probably not detectable) or one of each, body and guest/member. This should provide an identifiably different result.

Georgina Woodward

Meaning, can amputation and transplantation be shown which is incompatible with the superposition model.

Georgina Woodward

I've said I predict outcome 3 .That allows a definite is or is not as predicted. I'm actually torn between possible outcomes. I'd like experimental evidence.

Georgina Woodward

Can amputation and transplantation be shown which is incompatible with the superposition model? I think the question is good. I'm having doubts about the method being able to tell, and the reasoning for it. However the superposition doesn't rely upon re-union, the photon partition or photon/'guest' partition does. Thinking caps on.

Georgina Woodward

Seems I upset Wolfgang by his reply on viXra. I shouldn't have said the apparatus [https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0034] is simple. I meant not unfeasibly complicated or prohibitively expensive. I think it is achievable but have no personal experience of setting up interferometers to draw on. Which is not saying I think it's not time consuming and not requiring some skill and effort. Do I expect it to be done for me/ No-I hope in time it will be done because its interesting and can be done.. Am I serious? Yes. I'm challenging the indivisibility of photons. Though not part of the paper even outcome 2 can be interpreted in a way that refutes conventional non locality and interaction free testing. A method for checking has been suggested, on this site, Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 9, 2022 @ 00:42 GMT.

Georgina Woodward

Revised Photon Partition hypothesis A photon is not fundamental and indivisible. It is divided into a photon body, which is localized and measurable as a photon particle; Also divided 'a' wave-like sub photon companion, that is not directly detectable. However the effect of the sub photon companion can be known, indicating its presence. The sub photon companion is divisible at double slits or beam-splitters, so it has non local existence. Accounting for non local effects such as, what has seemed to be interaction free testing and 'spooky' knowing when paths are blocked without passage of a photon body by that route to detect the blockage. Whether it's part of the photon itself or an environmental effect will be addressed. Photon behaviour is not the product solely of properties of the localized photon body. Reunion of the sub photon companion can result in wave interference that influences the trajectory of the photon body.

Georgina Woodward

The main difference here is that the sub photon companion is divisible. That makes it able to take both paths .So it can be the reason for non local effects (by one sub photon part being absorbed.) Or it can cause wave interference when reunited. This is a combination of localized photon body and non localiz-able sub photon. In this way wave-particle duality can be visualized as a physical reality not just an abstract idea.

Georgina Woodward

In my latest paper, submitted to viXra but I do not yet have a link, the revised Photon partition hypothesis is set out. Providing a physical embodiment of wave-particle existence. Three experiments are described: Young's double slit experiment on light, the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb thought experiment, a variation without a bomb but a path blocking light detector. A quantum physics description of how each experiments outcome happens is given. For comparison the photon partition hypothesis is used to describe how the results come about.

Georgina Woodward

The revised Photon partition hypothesis. Interrogating photons

Here if you'd rather copy and paste http://viXra.org/abs/2203.0095

Georgina Woodward

I've added a couple of comments, which make things clear.

Georgina Woodward

I thought maybe I should look at describing how the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment outcomes come about. Sabine Hossenfelder has an informative video on it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U Which is basically showing the reaction to the results is 'a fuss about nothing'. She mentions at the end, the weirdness of the original double slit experiment and says she thinks the bomb experiment is far weirder than the quantum eraser. in the first half of my latest paper, I have given both the quantum physics and photon partition hypothesis explanation of the results both of these experiments; (the latter quashing the weirdness).

Georgina Woodward

Here, once again, we are dealing with a situation that doesn't have a simple black and white answer.

The subtle difference between a wave and something influenced by a wave/ waves. Only the something influenced, (a localized existence, or element of noumenal realty) that is able to cause a detectable phenomenon.

The wave by itself is not detectable. Because of that it is less than a photon (sub photon Companion). Known to be present because of its influence on the localized element of object reality ( or in some scenarios its separate non local presence can be inferred by the lack of detected influence.) Still, evidence of physically real interaction.

« Previous Page Next Page »