Nobody really knows. A standard answer is that nothing changes, except the final measurement outcome which is intrinsically random. But if you are not satisfied with such an answer, you are not alone. Some physicists study a hypothesis that there are some hidden variables which change, but since they are hidden we don't know for sure what they really are and if they really exist.dom_quixote said:What is the variable that changes between one shot of and another?
Maybe I misunderstand you... but if you mean that the slits change places with eachother, then no, they don't.dom_quixote said:Probably the slits change places as a function of time.
Personal speculation is not permitted. Do you have a peer reviewed paper that shows an excess temperature dependence of the interference pattern.dom_quixote said:All molecules in the measurement system are vibrating at the white noise frequency.
It's a quantum mechanics postulate that the particle is in a super position state. With different probabilities for different positions when observed.dom_quixote said:It is known that in the double slit experiment, when successive photons are fired, the photons are statistically distributed on the target screen, as if it were a wave.
What is the variable that changes between one shot of and another? Probably the slits change places as a function of time.
I don't think that this is personal speculation, but indeed a physical effect. Of course the thermal noise in a standard double-slit experiment is not visible due to the usual resolution of the used detectors. However, if it comes to high precision, as, e.g., with the LIGO detectors, one can observe even the much smaller quantum fluctuations of the harmonic oscillator formed by the mirrors. So it's just a matter of detector resolution, whether you observe thermal or even quantum fluctuations.Dale said:Personal speculation is not permitted. Do you have a peer reviewed paper that shows an excess temperature dependence of the interference pattern.
Then they should be able to produce a peer reviewed paper showing the effect they are discussing. I don’t think they are talking about what you are. I think they are trying to say that the interference in a standard double slit experiment is driven primarily by thermal motion.vanhees71 said:I don't think that this is personal speculation, but indeed a physical effect.
The double slit experiment is a classic experiment in physics that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light and matter. It involves shining a beam of particles or light through two parallel slits and observing the resulting interference pattern on a screen. This pattern is caused by the superposition of waves from the two slits, and it shows that particles can behave like waves and exhibit interference.
The double slit experiment does not change over time. The setup and principles of the experiment remain the same, but the results may vary depending on the conditions and variables involved. For example, the interference pattern may shift or change in intensity as the experiment is repeated with different particles or under different conditions.
The double slit experiment is significant because it provides evidence for the wave-particle duality of light and matter, which is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It also challenges the traditional understanding of particles as solid, localized objects and introduces the concept of probability in the behavior of particles at the quantum level.
Yes, the principles of the double slit experiment can be applied to other areas of science, such as electron microscopy and diffraction. It has also been used in various fields, including psychology and biology, to study the behavior of particles and waves in different systems.
One limitation of the double slit experiment is that it can only be applied to particles that are small enough to exhibit wave-like behavior. Another criticism is that the experiment is difficult to conceptualize and can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of particles. Additionally, some scientists argue that the interpretation of the results is subjective and open to different interpretations.