Classic double-slit experiment in a new light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a new variant of the classic double-slit experiment utilizing resonant inelastic X-ray scattering to explore the electronic structure of solids. Participants examine the implications of this experimental approach, particularly regarding coherence and interference patterns in the context of atomic interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe the experimental setup involving high-energy X-ray photons and iridium atoms, noting the emission of X-ray photons that create interference images.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the coherence of the interference pattern when two different atoms are involved in the absorption and emission process, with one participant questioning how consistent phases can be maintained.
  • Another participant suggests that only one atom absorbs the photon, but the process remains coherent, although the specifics of this coherence are debated.
  • There is confusion regarding the terminology of "inelastic scattering" versus "elastic scattering," with implications for phase coherence being discussed.
  • Participants note issues with external links and image displays related to the referenced article, indicating potential browser-specific problems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the coherence of the interference pattern and the implications of scattering types, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of atomic interactions and the definitions of scattering types, which may affect the interpretation of coherence in the experiment.

Wrichik Basu
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,186
Reaction score
2,694
190118145533_1_540x360.jpg

An intense beam of high-energy X-ray photons (violet) hits two adjacent iridium atoms (green) in the crystal. This excites electrons in the atoms for a short time. The atoms emit X-ray photons which overlap behind the two iridium atoms (red) and can be analyzed as interference images.
Credit: Markus Grueninger, University of Cologne

An international research team led by physicists from Collaborative Research Centre 1238, 'Control and Dynamics of Quantum Materials' at the University of Cologne has implemented a new variant of the basic double-slit experiment using resonant inelastic X-ray scattering at the European Synchrotron ESRF in Grenoble. This new variant offers a deeper understanding of the electronic structure of solids. Writing in Science Advances, the research group have now presented their results under the title 'Resonant inelastic x-ray incarnation of Young's double-slit experiment'.

Related news.

Journal reference:

A. Revelli, et al. Resonant inelastic x-ray incarnation of Young’s double-slit experiment. Science Advances, 2019 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav4020

Last Edit: Inserted correct picture.
 

Attachments

  • 190118145533_1_540x360.jpg
    190118145533_1_540x360.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 820
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu, mfb, davenn and 2 others
Science news on Phys.org
Please note that the Science Daily article shows the wrong picture thumbnail ie mentions ingestible robots. However, if you click on it you’ll see the diffraction image in the first post of this thread.
 
jedishrfu said:
Please note that the Science Daily article shows the wrong picture thumbnail ie mentions ingestible robots. However, if you click on it you’ll see the diffraction image in the first post of this thread.
They have corrected their mistake. Now, the proper picture can be seen.
 
Not when I just clicked the link now. I even refreshed the page and it’s still there.

Perhaps they have another updated link or it’s a browser specific problem.
 
jedishrfu said:
Not when I just clicked the link now. I even refreshed the page and it’s still there.

Perhaps they have another updated link or it’s a browser specific problem.
Could be browser specific. When I edited the post the last time, I could view the correct picture. I can see it now as well. Maybe it has something to do with cookies.
 
Ahh, it’s Girl Scout cookie time in the US that explains it. :-)
 
Wrichik Basu said:
This excites electrons in the atoms for a short time.
I have a bit of a problem with that. If there are two different atoms absorbing then emitting, then how can the phases of the two 'slits' be consistent and how can a coherent interference pattern form? There must be something I am missing - what is it?
 
Only one of them absorbs it, but "we don't know which one" and the process is coherent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur said:
I have a bit of a problem with that. If there are two different atoms absorbing then emitting, then how can the phases of the two 'slits' be consistent and how can a coherent interference pattern form? There must be something I am missing - what is it?
From the main article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav4020 said:
The incident plane wave (blue) resonantly excites a core electron on one of two equivalent ##Ir## sites at ##r_1## and ##r_2##. This intermediate state decays to a quasi-molecular final state, which is delocalized over both sites, i.e., without which-path information. The emitted x-rays interfere with each other, giving rise to a double-slit-type sinusoidal interference pattern as a function of the transferred momentum ##q##, which points along ##r_1 − r_2##.
Emphasis added.

This supports what @mfb has said above.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #10
I was confused by the term "inelastic scattering" in the extract above when it seems that, in the paper (which I looked at later), they refer to "elastic" scattering. That would make a difference to whether there was phase coherence or not - I would have thought?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K