Isn't interference supposed to be "destroyed/lost" when the quantum particles are measured/observed? So, are you saying the pattern we see when quantum particles are measured/observed is also an interference pattern as compared to the pattern produced when the quantum particles are not...
I am bit confused with the explanations given for not seeing interference pattern in much bigger objects when passed through the slits.
So, the explanation is that the wavelength is so small for big objects that interference pattern become indecipherable hence rendering it useless to...
If the experiment is done in a medium then do we know when the wave function collapses related to the optical density of the medium? I mean, we know that we see the interference pattern on an high density receiving object when light goes through medium like air. Apparently the wave function does...
Nevertheless it does mean that the probability of locating a particle at that point, or probability of "particle" manifesting itself into a particle if measured at that point, is zero. Isn't it?
I think I am on the right track in understanding QM because I am very confused :smile:
Few questions:
1. Let's say electrons are emitted from the electron gun towards a slit. Do the electrons display the wave property even before passing through the slit right after leaving the electron gun or...
My apologies...I could not visualize it fully although I answered assuming that you are talking about waves crossing each other and after crossing the slit.
"The wave energy is released from the particle on passing through the slit (provided the wave field of the particle is larger than the...
Fair enough and point well taken :smile: and thanks for the link. But if the two counter intuitive thoughts interprets differently the simplest one must be more true (occam's razor). I feel the way I interpret it is much more simpler unless of course there is a serious flaw in what I interpret...
Fully agree. Maybe proposing a model is an incorrect terminology. But this is the thought process and IMO the best way to understand something is to challenge it with one's own understanding. What is wrong with the thought process that I am saying is not clear to me? The current model is not be...
Agreed as per the current theory. But the problem with this model is that the particle has to split into as many crests in the resultant wave forming the diffraction pattern on the screen. The question is why should a particle "adapts" itself as a wave when passing through the slit and suddenly...
Due to lack of a better term that I am aware of, "wave node" meaning the trough and the crests of the wave. Again when we count "them" coming in 1 by 1, how do we know it is the particle and not the crest of the wave? I am not saying the particles do not hit the plate but the particle will pass...
I think the assumption here is that the particle is following the path of wave nodes. The wave energy is released from the particle on passing through the slit (provided the wave field of the particle is larger than the slit) thereby slowing down the particles on the other side obeying the laws...
Well the assumption here is that "finding a particle at a particular location". How do we know that the resultant diffraction on the plate/board is due to the particle falling on it or due to the resultant wave energy interacting with the plate/board causing the pattern or even both?
I think...
Here is a noobie thought.
We all know the double slit experiment (say for electrons) and the explanation that electrons behave like both wave and a particle. So they pass through both the slits forming the interference pattern. But I think a quanta (electron in this case) behaves like a...