The Triple Slit Experiment:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Jan 6, 2017.

  1. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Although a double not triple slit experiment, this article has imo heavy bearing on the proper interpretation of OP article claim: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.09143
    A read of the first 3 pages is revealing. Reinforcing the dissenting opinion quoted in #15. Easier and safer to just make bland noncontroversial truisms of course.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    The arxiv version is essentially identical to the Nature Open Access one, but the latter site contains further supplementary material - including the pdf one with various referee remarks. Dissenting opinion there makes more sense imo, and is as per #21, backed up by the findings in the article linked to there. Which makes it perfectly clear the same deviations from naive application of superposition can be found in a careful classical optics treatment as for the QM/QED one.
    So it comes down to which interpretation of the results accords more with the physical arrangement(s). Let's see what other experts in the field have to say further down the track. I expect scathing criticism of the looping paths interpretation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page