Detect Single Electron: Fuji-Film & Kodak-Film?

[KYY]

When I want to detect single electron(double-slits experiment), can I use usual photosensitive film(like Fuji-film, Kodak-film)? And, what specification I need?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Do you mean an electron and not a photon?
Ioinsing radiations will fog photographic film but you don't mention the energy of the electrons being used. What research have you already done on the subject?

 

[jim mcnamara]

Do you know about the Milliken Oil Drop experiment:
http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~phys128/experiments/electron/Millikan-Oil-Drop-Manual-AP-8210A.pdfThis is a pretty much standard lab exercise for Physics students - at least at New Mexico State University.

Measure charge of the electron.

 

[DaveE]

You'll never find the signal from a signal particle on exposed film, you won't be able to distinguish it from the noise, even if you did know where to look on the film.
This kind of experiment is typically done with electronic detectors so the data can be time resolved. Probably the most common detector for this sort of thing is the Photomultiplier tube.

 

[sophiecentaur]

When I want to detect single electron(double-slits experiment)

This involves two contradictory things. The double slits experiment involves building up a pattern with billions of electrons (or photons). One electron could turn up anywhere on your film.
Also, have you considered the sort of wavelength (de Broglie) you would need and what sort of electron energy it would require? This link could help you there.

 

[ZapperZ]

The standard method of SPATIAL electron detection is to use a CCD. The issue here is not just detecting electrons, but also its spatial location. This is something we do in, say, angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, where the photoelectrons are collected at various energy and angular distribution in a single shot. A photomultiplier simply tells you that you detected an electron. It doesn't tell you where exactly within the window of acceptance of that device.

The OP doesn't seem to be aware of how non-trivial this is.

Zz.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/photontheory/ARPES.html

 

[KYY]

The standard method of SPATIAL electron detection is to use a CCD. The issue here is not just detecting electrons, but also its spatial location. This is something we do in, say, angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, where the photoelectrons are collected at various energy and angular distribution in a single shot. A photomultiplier simply tells you that you detected an electron. It doesn't tell you where exactly within the window of acceptance of that device.

The OP doesn't seem to be aware of how non-trivial this is.

Zz.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/photontheory/ARPES.html

Thank you for your reply. I just want to know about Claus Jonsson's Double slits experiment. I heard that he used very sensitive film enough to react to weak electron. I don't have to know the electron's exact spatial location. It is enough if I could see electrons' interference pattern. In other words, what I want to know is the method or film that Claus Jonsson utilized to attain this picture

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Claus_Jönsson_Interferenz.jpg

 

[Lord Jestocost]

In his original paper „Elektroneninterferenzen an mehreren künstlich hergestellten Feinspalten“ (Zeitschrift für Physik, August 1961, Volume 161, Issue 4, pp 454–474), Claus Jönsson writes:

„Als Aufnahmematerial wurde die für Materiestrahlen besonders feinkörnige und empfindliche Ilford Q1-Platte verwendet.“

(I hope the following is the correct translation: The recording material used was an to particle beams extremely fine-grained and sensitive Ilford Q1 plate.)

 

[ZapperZ]

Thank you for your reply. I just want to know about Claus Jonsson's Double slits experiment. I heard that he used very sensitive film enough to react to weak electron. I don't have to know the electron's exact spatial location. It is enough if I could see electrons' interference pattern. In other words, what I want to know is the method or film that Claus Jonsson utilized to attain this picture

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Claus_Jönsson_Interferenz.jpg

Unless you are doing something analogous to an interferometer experiment, you DO need to know the spatial location of where the electron lands. That's why you can get interference pattern! Otherwise, all the electrons will land at the same location, and how can you tell each one was the result of an interference between the paths?

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

. I don't have to know the electron's exact spatial location. It is enough if I could see electrons' interference pattern.

You don't seem to have taken this problem on board. There is no such thing as the interference pattern of a single electron. When it lands, it lands somewhere and the 'pattern' it makes on a sensor / film is just a single spot. The interference pattern is only there when there are enough electrons arriving to form a spatial distribution with the familiar fringes.
There is no point in replying with the same question, yet again because the answer will be the same and not, I think, what you (think you) want. If you enough time to wait, you could fire billions ( one electron at a time) and that could form an interference pattern.

 

[DaveE]

Feynman explaining the double slit experiment. One of the best explanations, IMO.
Pay attention when he's talking about single photons and the statistical nature of the interference patterns. No one does this experiment with one photon. They either do a lot of photons in one run, or they do one photon observations many repeated times. As others have said, one photon can end up almost anywhere.

 

[DBO]

A Channeltron or MCP would be best to use here. The channeltron gives huge gain and minimal complexity while the MCP followed by a phosphor and then CCD gives high gain and position sensitivity.

 

[sophiecentaur]

A Channeltron or MCP would be best to use here.

For detecting the presence of an electron yes - but the OP seems to want a pattern out of the experiment. Would a Channeltron do that?

 

[DBO]

Instead of a channeltron, use the MCP followed by a scintillator followed by a cheap cooled amateur astronomy ccd camera. This will give very good position sensitivity and will actually work. Needs one 0-2 KV low noise power supply, an MCP, a scintillator, camera. All can be had for about $4000.

 

[DBO]

Somebody mentioned the Millikan oil drop experiment as being a standard for physics students and I bet few have done it. It is actually an extremely difficult experiment to do as it involves squinting thru a microscope for hours and finding just the right droplets and timing them with a stopwatch and adjusting the field to get them to stop falling. Easy to understand, very tough to do.

 

[ZapperZ]

Somebody mentioned the Millikan oil drop experiment as being a standard for physics students and I bet few have done it. It is actually an extremely difficult experiment to do as it involves squinting thru a microscope for hours and finding just the right droplets and timing them with a stopwatch and adjusting the field to get them to stop falling. Easy to understand, very tough to do.

I assign my students a virtual oil drop experiment for them to do at home:

https://www.thephysicsaviary.com/Physics/Programs/Labs/MillikanOilDropLab/
Zz.

 

[KYY]

You don't seem to have taken this problem on board. There is no such thing as the interference pattern of a single electron. When it lands, it lands somewhere and the 'pattern' it makes on a sensor / film is just a single spot. The interference pattern is only there when there are enough electrons arriving to form a spatial distribution with the familiar fringes.
There is no point in replying with the same question, yet again because the answer will be the same and not, I think, what you (think you) want. If you enough time to wait, you could fire billions ( one electron at a time) and that could form an interference pattern.

I'm lacking of a command of English, so my words can be misleading... I do not mean that a 'single electron' forms interference pattern. But I mean that I want to detect a 'single electron' one by one using plate. I want to know concrete experimental method.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm lacking of a command of English, so my words can be misleading... I do not mean that a 'single electron' forms interference pattern. But I mean that I want to detect a 'single electron' one by one using plate. I want to know concrete experimental method.

Ok. So you need to calculate the spacing of the fringe pattern, using the slit separation and the de Broglie wavelength of your beam of electrons etc..Of course it all has to be in a vacuum for the electrons to travel far.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm lacking of a command of English, so my words can be misleading... I do not mean that a 'single electron' forms interference pattern. But I mean that I want to detect a 'single electron' one by one using plate. I want to know concrete experimental method.

What you want to do is something like this:

This was why I stated that you not only need to detect the presence of an electron, but also the SPATIAL location of where the electron hit the detector!

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

but also the SPATIAL location of where the electron hit the detector

. . . . and the spatial resolution of the detector will dictate the Energy (hence the wavelength) of the electron beam that must be used. The fringes must be a sensible fraction of the width of the detector and also a useful multiple of the spacing of the elements of the detector. The OP has not come up with this information yet.