Timeline for What are "interferences of higher order" in the context of Born rule and triple-slit diffraction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | @dmckee. Ok, we all see things from our own perspectives :) I agree that experimental tests are of paramount importance, but my question was about the theoretical side of the experiment. So your answer is still the accepted one as far as I am concerned. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 15:30 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @StéphaneRollandin This answer adds something that my answer explicitly disclaims: an interpretation of the significance: working from just your quotes I didn't follow that the report on an experimental limit. This kind of quantitative 'we found exactly what the theory says' paper is important, but it helps to rule out alternate theories that make almost but not quite identical predictions. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 15:24 | history | edited | Anon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 99 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2017 at 15:14 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | See my answer here: physics.stackexchange.com/a/262707/109928 for what I mean by coarse-graining (it's the notion of "quasi-classical" there) | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 15:08 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | No, our misunderstanding stems from the fact that you are equating the "paths" in my question with the "ways" in the accepted answer. Quantum objects do not have trajectories, so the "ways" are only a coarse-grained description that assumes particles actually go through slits. As I already told you, even with a single slit (a single "way") you still have interference of an infinity of "paths" (that's the path integral idea). | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:59 | comment | added | Anon | @StéphaneRollandin My original answer was on the significance of this experiment since the accepted answer does not mention it. Also you said that 'Only, I can still see no legitimation to the notion that "quantum interference occurs from pairs of paths"'. So I assume you haven't truly grasped the answer to your question. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:55 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | Did you read the accepted answer? It is all there already. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:53 | comment | added | Anon | @StéphaneRollandin I expounded my original answer to hopefully clarify. The quantum interference in this context is the term $A^*B + B^*A$ (double slit). For the triple slit, Born rule only allows pairwise combinations A and B, A and C, B and C. No interference term that involves A,B and C all at once. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:49 | history | edited | Anon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1065 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:37 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | It is certainly worthwhile to experimentally test the validity of Born rule, no problem with that. Only, I can still see no legitimation to the notion that "quantum interference occurs from pairs of paths". This is what my question was about. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:35 | comment | added | Anon | @StéphaneRollandin If the accuracy of their experiment was much higher and if they detected a violation of the Born rule then Schrodinger's equation must be modified. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:30 | comment | added | Anon | @StéphaneRollandin This paper was testing the validity of Born rule. In other words, what if the probability is not strictly modulus squared? If Born rule is just an approximation then they would have detected contributions that are not accounted by Born rule. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:24 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | Well according to the path integral approach there is always interference of all possible paths. This means that even for a single slit you get an infinity of paths interfering, so changing the number of slits will not add any higher-order effect. As the accepted answer shows, pairs simply appear as cross-terms in the (mathematical) expansion of an outcome probability as per Born rule. There does not seem to be anything special going on here, physics-wise. | |
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:15 | review | Late answers | |||
| Sep 19, 2017 at 14:17 | |||||
| Sep 19, 2017 at 13:57 | history | answered | Anon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |