Double Slit Experiment with Electrons

Click For Summary
The double slit experiment with electrons demonstrates that when no measurement is made, electrons create an interference pattern, indicating wave-like behavior. If a detector is placed between the slits, it will only register particle-like behavior, resulting in discrete dots rather than an interference pattern. This phenomenon illustrates that quantum objects, like electrons, do not conform to classical definitions of particles or waves but exhibit characteristics based on measurement. The discussion emphasizes that understanding these behaviors requires recognizing that quantum objects are distinct entities that reveal different properties depending on the experimental setup. Ultimately, measuring which slit an electron passes through collapses the wave function, eliminating the interference pattern.
  • #31
diemilio said:
So what you're saying is that the measurement itself in a way "corrupts" the original experiment so the results of the original test change, correct? That I can understand.

No.

I am saying that the thing being measured and what you measure it with interacts, becomes entangled (specifically via decoherence), and when that happens interference terms are suppressed.

That might be techno-babble, but unfortunately its the best I can do.

The following will explain it carefully:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036678/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Warning - it requires math. But unfortunately that's the only way to explain it CORRECTLY. You will find plenty of popularisations that purport to explain it but mostly its rubbish. Susskind avoids such issues - but your thinking cap needs to be on.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
bhobba said:
No.

I am saying that the thing being measured and what you measure it with interacts, becomes entangled (specifically via decoherence), and when that happens interference terms are suppressed.

That might be techno-babble, but unfortunately its the best I can do.

The following will explain it carefully:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036678/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Warning - it requires math. But unfortunately that's the only way to explain it CORRECTLY. You will find plenty of popularisations that purport to explain it but mostly its rubbish. Susskind avoids such issues - but your thinking cap needs to be on.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks Bill, I will check out the reference. I have "OK" math skills, so I think I should be fine. If you happen to know of a paper where they show the experimental results I am looking for I would appreciate it.

Thanks again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
583
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K