> Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 13.25 [email protected] ha scritto: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 12:10:25 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Il 20 gennaio 2019 alle 12.56 [email protected] ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 10:46:01 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [BRUNO writes] It has a non null amplitude of > > > > probability of being here and there at the same time, like having a non > > > > null amplitude of probability of going through each slit in the two > > > > slits experience. If not, you can’t explain the inference patterns, > > > > especially in the photon self-interference. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting to point out that, in the two-slit, it is > > > > possible to have interference even when there is just one slit open > > > > (and the other slit shut, and viceversa, with some appropriate > > > > frequence). In this case it seems that the two amplitudes cannot > > > > interfere. > > > > > > > > - Leonard Mandel : "On the Possibility of Observing > > > > Interference Effects with Light Beams Divided by a Shutter", > > > > J.Opt.Soc.Amer., > > > > 49, (1959), 931. > > > > - R.M. Sillitto, Catherine Wykes: "An Interference > > > > Experiment With Light Beams Modulated In Anti-Phase By An Electro-Optic > > > > Shutter", > > > > Physics Letters, 39-A-4, (1972), 333-334. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this called diffraction? AG > > > > > > > > > > No, they show it is interference > > > > > > ??? CMIIAW, but I'm pretty sure that single slit interference is called > DIFFRACTION. There is interference for a single slit. Apply Huygen's > principle where each point in the slit acts as source of waves which mutually > interference. AG >
Interference is interference. Diffraction is diffraction. After useful considerations by Leonard Mandel [J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 49, (1959), 931] at last R.M. Sillitto and Catherine Wykes [Physics Letters, 39-A-4, (1972), 333] performed the experiment suggested by Janossy and Nagy (1956) and found a beautiful INTERFERENCE when just one photon was present in their interferometer, at a time, and when their electro-optic shutter (closing one or the other slit, alternatively) was switched several times during the time-travel of each photon. In terms of photons (that is to say: particles) the condition for INTERFERENCE is that the two in principle *possible* paths lead to the same cell of phase space, so that the path of each photon is intrinsically indeterminate (the usual 'welcher weg', or 'which path', issue). Of course the shutter must be switched in a time which is less than the uncertainty in the time arrival of the photon. In other words. Here the INTERFERENCE seems to be due to the indistinguishability of the two possible paths (only one of these paths is actual, because there is that shutter). It is very difficult to see here an interference between two amplitudes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
