Further discussion on the double slit experiment

My opinion:  the author’s interpretation could not explain the observed data in double silt experiment and he made several conceptual errors.

To explain the interference with only probabilities, the author provided the condition for occurrence of the particle interference phenomenon as:

N₁₂ > N                                                                                             (3)

Or:

t > (c₁t₁ + c₂t₂)/p₁₂                                                                             (4)

This is his first error: the observed interference pattern not just has enhanced places like in Eq. (3), but also the destructive places where: N₁₂ < N.

Then he assumed that: “Because in almost all experiments, t₁ and t₂ had very small values with t having a large value. These would cause t > (c₁t₁ + c₂t₂)/p₁₂ to hold”.

This is his second error. In double split experiments, the time durations (t₁, t₂ and t) corresponding to three different experimental settings, without any logical relation. We can use the following counterexample: first open slit A for 1000 minutes, then open slit B for another 1000 minutes, finally open both slits for 10 minute, so:

 t = 10 << 1000(c₁ + c₂)/p₁₂ = 1000   (p₁₂ = c₁ + c₂ as the author claims)

The inequality (4) now is totally violated, but, in the experiment, we can see very clear interference pattern with both constructive and destructive strips, no matter if any slit was closed earlier.

Later, in his Discussion, the author argues: “If ψ_A represented the wave function of particles which passed through slit A, then, | ψ_A |² should depend on c₁, n, and t₁”, that is:

|ψ_A |² = c₁n t₁                                                                                     (5)

This is his third error: How can |ψ_A |² be proportional to time? In quantum mechanics, |ψ_A |² is a probability by nature and almost time-independent for this experiment.   His Eq. (6) has the same trouble. 

Finally, the author suggested that:  p₁₂ n t − (c₁ n t₁ + c₂ n t₂) = |ψ_A + ψ_B |². 

This is his fourth error, not only because |ψ_A + ψ_B |² should not proportional to time, but also because it must be nonnegative. Nevertheless, by using our counterexample again, the above suggestion would lead to negative value of |ψ_A + ψ_B |². 

Bottom line: An acceptable new interpretation of double slit experiment must, at least, explain both the constructive and destructive interference pattern with two slits open, no matter how long one slit is closed earlier or later.

very good

with reason