Novie questions about the double-slit experiment

In summary, the conversation discusses the double-slit experiment and the role of measurement in determining the behavior of quantum particles. The speaker is seeking clarification on how the detection at the slits differs from the detection at the screen and how it affects the interference patterns. They also question the concept of "observing" changing the behavior of particles and whether the timing of detection plays a role. The expert summarizes that knowing which slit the particle passes through leads to a single-slit diffraction pattern, but questions remain about the role of detection in determining the particle's behavior.
  • #1
fimaun
8
0
Hello,

I am not educated in physics, but I would like to gain some understanding on the double-slit experiment. I am suspecting that not only its results are to me hardly understandable (as far as I know, that is the normal case), but also some of the assumptions on which the experiment itself relies.

There are many obscure points to me, and probably the following will be a stupid question... but I would appreciate someone clarifying the following:

If I understood what I have been reading, it is alleged that the 'measurement' by the slits changes the behaviour of the traveling electron from a wave-like one to a particle-one. I am talking about the 'measurement' that attempts to determine which slit the electron went through.

On the other hand, in the experiment there is a detection device, a fluorescent screen or sort of thing, that shows the wave-like behaviour of the electron by displaying the interference patterns.

So what I am not understanding is: In which way this 'detection' is different in nature from the 'detection' by the slits, so that forces the electron into a 'particle-like' object, but the other one does not?

After having formulated the question it sounds still more stupid, but it is a price I am eager to pay for some light on the subject... the resources I see in the Internet insist on quasi-mistycally talking about how 'observing' changes the behaviour of the particle, but I do not get the physical sense of this.

Thanks in advance.

David
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
fimaun said:
If I understood what I have been reading, it is alleged that the 'measurement' by the slits changes the behaviour of the traveling electron from a wave-like one to a particle-one. I am talking about the 'measurement' that attempts to determine which slit the electron went through.

On the other hand, in the experiment there is a detection device, a fluorescent screen or sort of thing, that shows the wave-like behaviour of the electron by displaying the interference patterns.

So what I am not understanding is: In which way this 'detection' is different in nature from the 'detection' by the slits, so that forces the electron into a 'particle-like' object, but the other one does not?

1. A "measurement" at the slit allows us to know which slit the electron passes through.

2. A "measurment" at the screen tell us nothing about which slit the electron passes through, because the screen is after the slits. All we know is that the electron made it through.

Zz.
 
  • #3
ZapperZ said:
1. A "measurement" at the slit allows us to know which slit the electron passes through.

2. A "measurment" at the screen tell us nothing about which slit the electron passes through, because the screen is after the slits. All we know is that the electron made it through.

Zz.

Thanks for your answers.

From what I read it seems to be implied (but I am not sure) for the measurement at the slit to cause the trajectories of the electrons to be particle-like, so that the interference patterns do not appear anymore if the electrons are 'observed' to see which slit they went through. That seems not to be the case with the after-split detector, so - does it mean that the slit-by detector is performing before the electron passing through the slit? Most of the layman-level descriptions of the experiment (and that's the level I can read) do not state anything about this.

But I might still be understanding wrongly your reply.
 
  • #4
fimaun said:
Thanks for your answers.

From what I read it seems to be implied (but I am not sure) for the measurement at the slit to cause the trajectories of the electrons to be particle-like, so that the interference patterns do not appear anymore if the electrons are 'observed' to see which slit they went through. That seems not to be the case with the after-split detector, so - does it mean that the slit-by detector is performing before the electron passing through the slit? Most of the layman-level descriptions of the experiment (and that's the level I can read) do not state anything about this.

But I might still be understanding wrongly your reply.

There's a slight misunderstanding here.

If you know which slit the electron (or any quantum particle, for that matter) pass through, then the 2-slit system becomes a system with 2 slits. Instead of the 2-slit interference pattern, you will get pattern coming from two individual slits, i.e. the single-slit diffraction pattern from each of the slits. So it isn't quite true that this is "particle-like".

I have no idea what you mean by " ... That seems not to be the case with the after-split detector, so - does it mean that the slit-by detector is performing before the electron passing through the slit? "

What is a "slit-by detector", and what is it performing?

Zz.
 
  • #5
ZapperZ said:
There's a slight misunderstanding here.

[...] i.e. the single-slit diffraction pattern from each of the slits. So it isn't quite true that this is "particle-like".

Zz.

Ok, I was missing that.

Let me call "A" the detector at the slit, which tells which slit the electron passes through. And let "B" be the screen onto which electrons impact.

My point is that, from what I've been reading, the fact of A detecting the electron causes the electron to 'choose' one of the slits. And a single-split difraction pattern to appear at B. If A is not there, then the 2-split interference pattern occurs. Wether we 'detect' or not determines the result.

I do not understand that fact... but just assuming it is true -that the mere fact of 'detecting' causes one of the paths to be chosen-, so why is that detection by B does not cause it? I mean, B is also detecting, but not 'causing' one path to be chosen.

Attempting to find an answer to the last question I asked whether A is detecting 'before' the electron passes the slits and B is detecting 'after' it passed.

I think I need to read more about all this. I will come back when I get some points a bit clearer.
 
  • #6
fimaun said:
Ok, I was missing that.

Let me call "A" the detector at the slit, which tells which slit the electron passes through. And let "B" be the screen onto which electrons impact.

My point is that, from what I've been reading, the fact of A detecting the electron causes the electron to 'choose' one of the slits. And a single-split difraction pattern to appear at B. If A is not there, then the 2-split interference pattern occurs. Wether we 'detect' or not determines the result.

I do not understand that fact... but just assuming it is true -that the mere fact of 'detecting' causes one of the paths to be chosen-, so why is that detection by B does not cause it? I mean, B is also detecting, but not 'causing' one path to be chosen.

Attempting to find an answer to the last question I asked whether A is detecting 'before' the electron passes the slits and B is detecting 'after' it passed.

I think I need to read more about all this. I will come back when I get some points a bit clearer.

But the detection at "B" is a different beast then the detection at A!

Just because you make a measurement, doesn't mean that it is the same as another measurement. You are trying to lump all of these measurements to be the same. I've already told you why they are different. So now, you have to tell me why you think they should be the same, or not any different than the other.

In QM, the order of operations, i.e. the sequence of events, makes a lot of difference.

Zz.
 
  • #7
ZapperZ said:
I've already told you why they are different. So now, you have to tell me why you think they should be the same, or not any different than the other.
Zz.

Well, here and here (from 3:47-4:35) it is said (or at least I underestand it like this) that the act of measuring at A "removed the wave element completely" (I'm quoting literally).

I wanted to understand in which way exactly the act of measuring affects the behaviour of the electron as a wave or as a particle, and why measureing at A forces the electron to choose a slit.

So I said to myself, "let's ask why the measurement at A changes such behaviour and the measurement at B does not. That would be a beginning in understanding what in the end these measurements do".

Now, in the wikipedia article "Doble-slit experiment" I read this:

The double-slit apparatus can be modified by adding particle detectors positioned at the slits. This enables the experimenter to find the position of a particle not when it impacts the screen, but rather, when it passes through the double-slit — did it go through only one of the slits, as a particle would be expected to do, or through both, as a wave would be expected to do? Numerous experiments have shown, however, that any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a particle passes through reduces the visibility of interference at the screen,[3] thereby illustrating the complementarity principle: that light (and electrons, etc.) can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time.[18][19][20] An experiment performed in 1987[21] produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken, without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent.

And that seems to me to contradict my two other sources above, whilst sounding much less mystically. And it changes my view of the experimet.
 
  • #8
You could look at it this way.
Two detectors placed, one at each slit would give equal values of total count as the electrons arrive from the source but the 'clicks' as each detector went off would have a random pattern to them - they wouldn't be alternate, for example but in bursts through one then through the other etc. etc. This would be because the wave function of each electron would have equal values at each slit. There will also be millions and millions of other electrons that just plough straight into the metal plate, with pretty well the same probability for every point on the plate (assuming a uniform beam was falling on the plate). Those electrons have been eliminated from the experiment. So, even at this stage, you can explain what happens in terms of the electron behaving like a wave - it's just that it can only be detected at one point on the plate.

When you open the two slits and let some SELECTED electrons fall on a distant screen, the probability of on electron hitting a particular part of that screen is now given by the effect of what is now two waves, emanating from what is now two sources - the slits. This probability distribution follows the same pattern as the interference pattern of the two waves.

Furthermore, if you take the plate away, there will be a uniform distribution on the screen because ALL the electrons are allowed to get there and you now have a simple wave function for the arriving electrons.

There is only an apparent paradox when one insists that the electrons hitting the detectors at the slits have to be viewed as 'particles'. If, at that stage, you are prepared to accept that they may be behaving as waves, then what follows is no surprise.
 
  • #9
sophiecentaur said:
There is only an apparent paradox when one insists that the electrons hitting the detectors at the slits have to be viewed as 'particles'. If, at that stage, you are prepared to accept that they may be behaving as waves, then what follows is no surprise.

I'd like to add to that, but I'm a bit hesitant because I've been learning physics from all over the place and not all sources are accurate.
But if I'd understood properly, if one would send the particles through the slits one at a time, with no other particles whatsoever to interfere with, the interference pattern still emerges.

In my opinion that's still quite a big surprise...
 
  • #10
gespex said:
I'd like to add to that, but I'm a bit hesitant because I've been learning physics from all over the place and not all sources are accurate.
But if I'd understood properly, if one would send the particles through the slits one at a time, with no other particles whatsoever to interfere with, the interference pattern still emerges.

In my opinion that's still quite a big surprise...

I was wondering whether I'd get a reply like this. If you had two separate electron guns, firing, independently into two slits, all you would get would be two piles of electrons - one for each slit. The wave functions of electrons hitting each slit would not include a finite value (probability) at the other slit.
There has to be a finite probability of an electron passing through each slit for the interference to apply.
Electrons don't 'interfere with each other' - which is what you are implying. Each electron (wave) only 'interferes with itself' (clearly they are all teenage boys haha)
Just one electron, with two slits to go through could appear anywhere on the screen. One electron doesn't consist of a pattern and you need to look at many electrons before the pattern emerges. But that one electron is just MORE likely to turn up at or near one of the peaks of the interference pattern.

Incidentally, for this to work properly and for a coherent interference pattern to emerge, the beam of electrons needs to have a fairly well defined velocity / momentum so that their de Broglie wavelengths (λ=h/mv) are all nearly the same.
 
  • #11
fimaun said:
Well, here and here (from 3:47-4:35) it is said (or at least I underestand it like this) that the act of measuring at A "removed the wave element completely" (I'm quoting literally)...

Welcome to PhysicsForums, fimaun!

ZapperZ is steering you straight, but I would like to add a few comments.

Once you know the particles goes through A, you eliminate the potential contribution from B. So in the restricted context of that statement, the wave element is removed. But quantum language is notoriously difficult to translate into English (or any) words, for exactly situations such as this. So perhaps this will help (although you may not be familiar with this particular type of apparatus). If I place polarizers at slit A and slit B, I can use their relative orientations to either: i) give me knowledge of the slit being traversed (if perpendicular); ii) or no knowledge of the slit being traversed (parallel). In either case, a wave emerges from the slits because we did not obtain position information.

The point being that if there are interference contributions from both A and B, you see that in the resulting pattern. I wouldn't get hung up on the words wave or particle here except as a simple way to picture in your mind. They usually use those words because people understand that a water wave goes through both slits, and bullets (in the particle analogy) go through one or the other but not both.

I hope this helps. :smile:
 
  • #12
The statement "removed the wave element completely" is not a helpful one. If a TV is turned on and you choose to close your eyes, you will hear it or, if you block your ears, you will see it. By your choice of observation method you have not changed the 'true nature' of the TV or 'removed the sound element' or 'removed the vision element'. Sound and Vision are still there.

By putting the plate in the way of the original beam of electrons, you have altered the wave function, by having one or two open slits in the plate, you have further altered it. The diffraction pattern due to what is placed in the way can always be looked upon as a diffraction pattern. It's just that some diffraction patterns 'look' a lot like the pattern you would get with a stream of particles and that's how many people choose to treat them.
 
  • #13
Thank you very much everyone for the answers. I will be answering as I get more understanding. As for now, I am seeing individual facts, but still I cannot see the sense of all this :). I need some time to reflect about this and to read a bit more...
 
  • #14
fimaun said:
Well, here and here (from 3:47-4:35) it is said (or at least I underestand it like this) that the act of measuring at A "removed the wave element completely" (I'm quoting literally).

I wanted to understand in which way exactly the act of measuring affects the behaviour of the electron as a wave or as a particle, and why measureing at A forces the electron to choose a slit.
.

Detection at detector B does not determine which slit the particle came from. That's why it does not cause the particle to go through one slit or the other. Only detector A (the one by the slit) does this. It's just the way nature is. If the system were to remain in a superposition, don't expect the world to exist as you see it.
 
  • #15
@fimaun

I think you would get a better handle on this subject by listening to (audiobook) Manjit Kumar's "Quantum, Einstein, Bohr, and the great debate about the nature of reality" Which is well explained (and read) for the lay person such as yourself.


sophiecentaur said:
(clearly they are all teenage boys haha)

Teenage?
 
  • #16
You could also consider reading 'Sneaking a Look at God's Cards' by Giancarlo Ghirardi (the GRW theory creator), or 'Quantum Reality: Theory and Philosophy' by Jonathan Allday - which goes into basic quantum mathematics.
 
  • #17
StevieTNZ said:
'Sneaking a Look at God's Cards'

With a title like that how can I resist.
 
  • #18
YummyFur said:
@fimaun


Teenage?

Stereotypes. I'm afraid. It could be you or me, I guess.
 
  • #19
Ok, fair enough about a photon/electron/whatever being 'rather' a particle or 'rather' a wave, or 'basically' a wave. I think I understand that better after your helpful explanations, especially from sophiecentaur and Dr Chinese.

However, my main problem was about the operation of 'measurement' and how it determines whether there will be an interference pattern or not.

Be it an illusion or not, I have the impression that I got to understand it quite better thanks to the Wikipedia article on the Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment.

Please correct me if the following is wrong, but this was my conclusion:

1) The interference pattern caused by several 'paths' or 'possibilities' for a photon/electron/whatever to take or follow appears when the measurement is able to register ALL those paths/possibilites. Put is simply - when it's on the way of each one of the trajectories. Just as the metal screen in the double-slit experiment or the screen in Wheeler's experiment.
2) On the other hand, the interference pattern disappears (in other words: the 'particle-like' behaviour is caused) when the detection method only can detect one of the paths/possibilities. Just as each one of the detectors by the slits in the double-slit experiment or each one of the telescopes in Wheeler's experiment.

That might be utterly wrong. Or that might be right but obvious to you and I failed to notice it but now.
 
  • #20
"Photon passes through double slit unobserved, logically either through one, through the other, or through both."

or neither any of the above three possibilites.
 
  • #21
fimaun said:
Ok, fair enough about a photon/electron/whatever being 'rather' a particle or 'rather' a wave, or 'basically' a wave. I think I understand that better after your helpful explanations, especially from sophiecentaur and Dr Chinese.

However, my main problem was about the operation of 'measurement' and how it determines whether there will be an interference pattern or not.

Be it an illusion or not, I have the impression that I got to understand it quite better thanks to the Wikipedia article on the Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment.

Please correct me if the following is wrong, but this was my conclusion:

1) The interference pattern caused by several 'paths' or 'possibilities' for a photon/electron/whatever to take or follow appears when the measurement is able to register ALL those paths/possibilites. Put is simply - when it's on the way of each one of the trajectories. Just as the metal screen in the double-slit experiment or the screen in Wheeler's experiment.
2) On the other hand, the interference pattern disappears (in other words: the 'particle-like' behaviour is caused) when the detection method only can detect one of the paths/possibilities. Just as each one of the detectors by the slits in the double-slit experiment or each one of the telescopes in Wheeler's experiment.

That might be utterly wrong. Or that might be right but obvious to you and I failed to notice it but now.

The act of 'measuring' is only one way of looking at this (all these 'explanations' are only trying to use familiar concepts to deal with a totally new ides). Just blocking one of the slots has just the same effect as 'measuring' the passage of an electron.
The pattern due to just one slit is still an interference / diffraction pattern (or you can regard it as such). Actually, something that hasn't been pointed out is that you only get a pattern with visible fringes in it (and not just two separate piles of electrons) if each slit is narrow enough to produce a spreading of its beam of electrons, in its own right, so that each of the two beams will overlap significantly. You won't suddenly get fringes appearing anywhere on the screen that electrons wouldn't get to through both slits independently. This is a really important thing to remember when trying to explain to yourself what's going on.

This may be easier to understand when considering photons-and-em-waves and then applying it to electrons afterwards (the electron diffraction effect is much less common to observe). Consider two radio transmitting antennae. Connect just one to the transmitter and you might get an omnidirectional pattern. Connect just the other one and you will also get an omnidirectional pattern. Connect both to the same transmitter and you will get a radiation pattern that is full of peaks and nulls due to interference. BUT, if each of the two antennae has very directional patterns to start with, the pattern of the two combined may well just be two beams in different directions with no peaks and troughs in between. It's only when the beams overlap that you get interference fringes.
This example opens a whole new can of worms, of course. Two antennae producing photons and producing an interference pattern. That must mean (if you insist on having photons as 'particles') each photon leaves the transmitter - travels along the feeder and could emerge through either antenna (but not both?) and then turn up somewhere in someone's radio receiver. Any ideas you may have about this need to include this thought experiment because "it's all the same stuff"!
 
  • #22
YummyFur said:
With a title like that how can I resist.

Don't know what you're getting at there.
 
  • #23
I'm saying that I like the witty title. In fact I like it enough to want to read the book. There is no evil intent.
 
  • #24
Who is this "Evelyn Tent" of whom you speak yet who you say doesn't exist?
 
  • #25
Waugh's distant cousin, and half brother to Warren Peace.
 
  • #26
sophiecentaur said:
BUT, if each of the two antennae has very directional patterns to start with, the pattern of the two combined may well just be two beams in different directions with no peaks and troughs in between. It's only when the beams overlap that you get interference fringes.
This example opens a whole new can of worms, of course. Two antennae producing photons and producing an interference pattern. That must mean (if you insist on having photons as 'particles') each photon leaves the transmitter - travels along the feeder and could emerge through either antenna (but not both?) and then turn up somewhere in someone's radio receiver. Any ideas you may have about this need to include this thought experiment because "it's all the same stuff"!

Let's forget about the 'particle-like' nature once for all then.

I am not sure how one can take this example as an equivalent one to the double-slit experiment. For it to be so, whether a given antenna emits or not would depend on the receiver. Depending on where the receiver would be, an interference pattern would be received or just a single-wave one. And if one receiver able to receive only a single-wave pattern does receive it, then a second observer in principle able to see an interference pattern wouldn't have a chance to see it.

Am I right?

Either I still don't get the crux of the matter, or it is puzzling how people (wikipedia, some web pages... divulgative texts in general) talk about that the 'observer determines the observation' without entering into details about time, possibilities paths, relative position of the observer to them and so on. I find this problem a lot more puzzling than having to call the electron a particle or a wave.
 
  • #27
fimaun said:
Either I still don't get the crux of the matter, or it is puzzling how people (wikipedia, some web pages...

There's nothing like having it well explained. Hunt out these further splendid expositions which you can put in your iPod® and listen to.

Age of Entanglement (Louisa Gilder)
Uncertainty (David Lindley)
Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution (Richard Wolfson)
 
  • #28
YummyFur said:
There's nothing like having it well explained. Hunt out these further splendid expositions which you can put in your iPod® and listen to.

Age of Entanglement (Louisa Gilder)
Uncertainty (David Lindley)
Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution (Richard Wolfson)

Ok, thanks for the references. I will have a look. Not necessarily using my iPod, which I don't have nor am I planning to buy in my way to understand the basics of QM ;).
 
  • #29
The iPod comment was just to emphasise that these books and the one referenced earlier are available as audio books, and they are read so well, and further, the person reading the works, (sometimes the author) understands what they are saying as they are saying it, that makes all the difference in being able to absorb the knowledge.
 
  • #30
fimaun said:
Let's forget about the 'particle-like' nature once for all then.

I am not sure how one can take this example as an equivalent one to the double-slit experiment. For it to be so, whether a given antenna emits or not would depend on the receiver. Depending on where the receiver would be, an interference pattern would be received or just a single-wave one. And if one receiver able to receive only a single-wave pattern does receive it, then a second observer in principle able to see an interference pattern wouldn't have a chance to see it.

Am I right?

Either I still don't get the crux of the matter, or it is puzzling how people (wikipedia, some web pages... divulgative texts in general) talk about that the 'observer determines the observation' without entering into details about time, possibilities paths, relative position of the observer to them and so on. I find this problem a lot more puzzling than having to call the electron a particle or a wave.

It IS somewhat confusing, but here are a couple of rules to consider. A single photon can be considered as having a start point and an end point. Those, together with the possibilities in between, form a context. Therefore, the observer can become a part of the context by choosing what goes on in between. This gives rise to the idea that "how you measure something" influences reality. Einstein did not like this idea, and in the famous EPR paper stated that was unreasonable. However, experiments with entangled photons clearly demonstrate this as accurate. So I believe this touches on your statements above. Please keep in mind that a choice by one observe does not cause any useful information to be transmitted to another, no matter how you construct the setup.

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm
 
  • #31
fimaun said:
Let's forget about the 'particle-like' nature once for all then.

I am not sure how one can take this example as an equivalent one to the double-slit experiment. For it to be so, whether a given antenna emits or not would depend on the receiver. Depending on where the receiver would be, an interference pattern would be received or just a single-wave one. And if one receiver able to receive only a single-wave pattern does receive it, then a second observer in principle able to see an interference pattern wouldn't have a chance to see it.

Am I right?
There is a direct similarity between light emerging from a narrow slit and being diffracted into a wide (180degree) beam and the signal from a radio antenna (vertical dipole / omnidirectional). The detection of the illumination pattern of the screen by the light depends as much on the sensitivity of the light measuring equipment (your eye) as it does on the right tuning of the radio receiver. In the one case we have two slits with coherent light hitting them from behind (essential) and in the other case we have two antennae fed with the same RF signal (the two transmitted signals are also coherent). The pattern with one experiment can be an exact scale model of the pattern with the other if you get the ratios of dimensions and wavelengths right. I we assume that the receive antenna has a wide directivity - just the same assumption as for the projector screen.
Does that address your problem? (I think that must be your point.)

Don't forget, this is the basic principle of all directional radio antenna arrays.
 
  • #32
greetings
like this subject..
has anyone made the plate which has the slits init out of the same stuff as the plate at the back...
by this i mean .if i fire one electron/photon at a plate of two slits , can we see or measure if any of that electron/photon hit the plate and did not go through the slit..
this i imagine would be a very teeny weeny bit..
one photon particle must surely have its own baby photons/particles coming off it.
so
if we had a plate with one slit would we still see a spread on the plate with the slit.
whilst the particle goes through the slit,the baby particles coming off IT would surly hit the plate and not go through the slit,just as some would also go through the slit.
 
  • #33
lostprophets said:
greetings
like this subject..
has anyone made the plate which has the slits init out of the same stuff as the plate at the back...
by this i mean .if i fire one electron/photon at a plate of two slits , can we see or measure if any of that electron/photon hit the plate and did not go through the slit..
this i imagine would be a very teeny weeny bit..
one photon particle must surely have its own baby photons/particles coming off it.
so
if we had a plate with one slit would we still see a spread on the plate with the slit.
whilst the particle goes through the slit,the baby particles coming off IT would surly hit the plate and not go through the slit,just as some would also go through the slit.

If I were you, I'd avoid some of the pictures of this that you clearly have in your head. They are seriously flawed and won't help you - believe me. Deriving the formulae for interference using the particle model is waaay beyond you . Stick to waves if you want to understand what's going on because Quantum Mechanics is not needed at this point.
A home brewed model is pretty much doomed to fail you - seriously.
 
  • #34
i hear you and i understand how the wave works.
i also see the single photon as a wave in its self.and not just a singular.
it has its own wave in my mind.this maybe wrong i don't know.
videos that use words such as ..a single photon/particle,to me are miss leading to the ordinary person not in the know.so why are they used?
thats not a question directed at you or anyone ,its just an observation.

so i know how the photon/wave works in the split experiment but not the why when observed. but I am sure i will. but to do so i need to ask questions as i don't have the tools for practical.
i have no idea what measuring tool is used to measure/watch the wave.or what effect it would have on the wave other than making it act different.
i take it the measuring eye has been put in various places to measure and not just at the front by the slit...ie behind the slit?
 
  • #35
lostprophets said:
i hear you and i understand how the wave works.
i also see the single photon as a wave in its self.and not just a singular.
it has its own wave in my mind.this maybe wrong i don't know.
videos that use words such as ..a single photon/particle,to me are miss leading to the ordinary person not in the know.so why are they used?
thats not a question directed at you or anyone ,its just an observation.

so i know how the photon/wave works in the split experiment but not the why when observed. but I am sure i will. but to do so i need to ask questions as i don't have the tools for practical.
i have no idea what measuring tool is used to measure/watch the wave.or what effect it would have on the wave other than making it act different.
i take it the measuring eye has been put in various places to measure and not just at the front by the slit...ie behind the slit?
That is not in accordance with the accepted model of a photon. A photon has no size, is massless and travels at c. It is nothing like a pebble, little bullet, 'wavelet' or any of the particles which have mass. You cannot include waves in a description of Photons any more than you can describe a wave as 'made up of photons'. The two concepts are far more separate from each other to allow such cosy descriptions.
There are many misleading animations of photons, but animations are very often produced more with the artistic effect in mind that accurate Science.

I don't think you can possible "know" as your model is not correct. You can 'watch' a wave with your eyes, a radio receiver or an IR detector. You can observe the way that waves interfere with each other in those ways too. You can observe the arrival of an individual photon but, once observed, it will cease to behave according to the wave of which its energy was a part. Hence, in the two slits experiment, you will either record waves as they hit the place where each slit happens to be OR you will observe photons arriving at different rates in the light and dark stripes of the interference pattern which forms on the screen. You cannot know (the concept is meaningless in fact) 'which slit' an individual photon passed through. They say that the wave function 'collapses' once you observe the photon.
If you really want to sort this out in your mind then you need not do any experiment. Just read about the topic and don't try to make up your own model for Electromagnetic Radiation - many people, cleverer than you (I may retract this in twenty years when your theory is accepted!) have evolved a very good theory to explain it all (at this particular level).
P.S. To have a cat's chance in hell of coming up with a valid theory of your own, it is absolutely necessary to understand exactly what the present theory is telling you.
 
<h2>1. What is the double-slit experiment?</h2><p>The double-slit experiment is a classic experiment in physics that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. It involves shining a beam of light through two parallel slits and observing the interference pattern that is created on a screen behind the slits.</p><h2>2. Why is the double-slit experiment important?</h2><p>The double-slit experiment is important because it provides evidence for the wave-particle duality of light, which is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It also allows scientists to study the behavior of particles on a quantum level and has led to many important discoveries in the field of physics.</p><h2>3. What is the significance of the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment?</h2><p>The interference pattern in the double-slit experiment is significant because it demonstrates the wave-like behavior of particles. This pattern is created when the waves of light passing through the two slits interfere with each other, resulting in bright and dark bands on the screen. This shows that particles can exhibit wave-like properties, which was a revolutionary discovery in the field of physics.</p><h2>4. Can the double-slit experiment be done with other particles besides light?</h2><p>Yes, the double-slit experiment can be done with other particles such as electrons, protons, and even large molecules. This has been demonstrated through various experiments and has further solidified the concept of wave-particle duality in the field of quantum mechanics.</p><h2>5. How does the double-slit experiment relate to the uncertainty principle?</h2><p>The double-slit experiment is closely related to the uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty. In the double-slit experiment, the interference pattern is affected by the act of observing the particles, which demonstrates the uncertainty in their position. This principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics and has been further explored through experiments like the double-slit experiment.</p>

1. What is the double-slit experiment?

The double-slit experiment is a classic experiment in physics that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. It involves shining a beam of light through two parallel slits and observing the interference pattern that is created on a screen behind the slits.

2. Why is the double-slit experiment important?

The double-slit experiment is important because it provides evidence for the wave-particle duality of light, which is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It also allows scientists to study the behavior of particles on a quantum level and has led to many important discoveries in the field of physics.

3. What is the significance of the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment?

The interference pattern in the double-slit experiment is significant because it demonstrates the wave-like behavior of particles. This pattern is created when the waves of light passing through the two slits interfere with each other, resulting in bright and dark bands on the screen. This shows that particles can exhibit wave-like properties, which was a revolutionary discovery in the field of physics.

4. Can the double-slit experiment be done with other particles besides light?

Yes, the double-slit experiment can be done with other particles such as electrons, protons, and even large molecules. This has been demonstrated through various experiments and has further solidified the concept of wave-particle duality in the field of quantum mechanics.

5. How does the double-slit experiment relate to the uncertainty principle?

The double-slit experiment is closely related to the uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty. In the double-slit experiment, the interference pattern is affected by the act of observing the particles, which demonstrates the uncertainty in their position. This principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics and has been further explored through experiments like the double-slit experiment.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
60
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
747
Replies
42
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
750
Back
Top