2-slit experiment for electron

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on simulating the double slit experiment for electrons using the Monte Carlo method, highlighting the challenge of reconciling classical predictions with experimental results. The user notes that assuming electrons pass through one slit at a time contradicts observed phenomena, as Feynman indicated that electrons can exhibit behavior consistent with passing through both slits simultaneously. There is a debate on whether to incorporate wave properties, specifically the wave function, to accurately represent electron behavior. Suggestions for simulation resources are provided, emphasizing the necessity of understanding the wave function in relation to the uncertainty principle. Ultimately, grasping the wave nature of electrons is crucial for successful simulation outcomes.
markoX
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,
I'm trying to simulate double slit experiment for electron (or any particles) by monte carlo method.but there is something interesting here which I explain it for you.
I supposed that electron will pass one of the splits in each time (by same chance) with random angle in X direction (according to uncertainty principle).results was classically predicted and violate experiment results!
Feynman have reported this result would be appear if you want to know where the electrons go.There are some electrons which pass two split at the same time but how can show it in monte carlo simulation?
should i just consider wave properties of electron (I mean wave function) or ... ?
(But I really want to understand this without using wave function)

Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are going to incorporate the uncertainty principle you must understand the wave function. If an electron is regarded as a particle, which it no longer is, there is no uncertainty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...