Double slit experiment with electrons

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the double-slit experiment with electrons, emphasizing the necessity of a stationary electron gun with a narrow nozzle aimed between the slits to achieve an interference pattern. Participants clarify that decoherence occurs when a measurement is made, collapsing the wave function of the electrons into a particle state. The experiment should ideally be conducted in a vacuum to minimize interactions with air molecules and photons, which can introduce uncertainty and affect the results. The conversation highlights the critical relationship between measurement and wave function collapse in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically wave-particle duality.
  • Familiarity with the concept of decoherence in quantum systems.
  • Knowledge of the double-slit experiment setup and its significance in demonstrating quantum behavior.
  • Basic grasp of electron behavior and interactions with photons.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of decoherence in quantum mechanics and its effects on wave function collapse.
  • Study the setup and variations of the double-slit experiment with electrons and other particles.
  • Explore the role of vacuum conditions in quantum experiments and their necessity for accurate results.
  • Investigate the relationship between measurement and quantum state collapse in greater detail.
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, quantum mechanics enthusiasts, experimental physicists, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of quantum theory and the behavior of particles in experiments.

PainterGuy
Messages
938
Reaction score
73
Hi,

Could you please help me with the queries below? Thanks in advance!

Question 1:
I was watching this video.

Between 8:36 to 9:44 the following is said:

"But only firing particle by single particle at this barrier with the 2 openings and by recording dot by single dot where each of those single particles lands on the detector screen. So let's run that version of the experiment and see what happens. So again, particle by single particle, we're recording on the back screen, the history of all the landing locations. And this is what happens in this experiment. Dot by single dot, we build up the same pattern, the same interference pattern, the same data. That suggests to us that there must be some kind of wave like phenomenon involved to yield this interference pattern. So this is where things get really strange. Particles, electrons little tiny dot. That is the image that we always have in mind. Waves are these spread out entities. How could a dot particle and a spread out wave somehow be connected And this was the puzzle that physicist faced In the early decades of the 20th century and many tried to figure out what could the connection between a particle and a wave be."

Please have a look at this piece from the video: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5033/e0ADHd.gif

At a time only single electron is shot at the slit and I think the electron gun should be stationary and must have a extremely nozzle like opening. Is the gun aimed at right slit or left slit, or the at the middle point of the slits?

Question 2:
In the video below between around 7:23 - 8:05 the following is said:

"well the biggest enemy of all quantum processes is something called decoherence remember how we talked about how the superposition only lost until a particle is measured well in quantum talk measured doesn't mean the same thing that it means in everyday language here measured means when this wave particle comes into contact with anything else like another particle a molecule anything when it's in this wave state it's said to be in a state of coherence when it's broken or measured the decoherence decoherence is the reason physicists need to work in such specific
conditions when they're dealing with quantum mechanical effects in the macroscopic world we're used to there are so many particles and molecules bouncing around so much jostling and wiggling due to the heat that coherence doesn't last long enough to be detected this is why we don't see quantum mechanical effects in our day-to-day lives
"

I don't think this is correct in the context of electron double slit experiment. You don't need to conduct this experiment in isolation at low temperatures. The photons could interact with the electrons on their own all the time but if photon detector or any other detector is used to see which slit the electron goes through then the decoherence takes place and wave function of electron collapses and only a particle is observed. Do I have it correct?Helpful link:
1: /watch?v=EmNQuK-E0kI ("What is The Quantum Wave Function, Exactly?", insert www.youtube.com in front
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PainterGuy said:
At a time only single electron is shot at the slit and I think the electron gun should be stationary and must have a extremely nozzle like opening. Is the gun aimed at right slit or left slit, or the at the middle point of the slits?
If the beam of electrons had no uncertainty in the lateral direction, then there would be no double slit experiment. Every electron would do the same thing: go through the first slit, go through the second slit or impact the intervening barrier.

In order to have the double slit experiment, the slits must be close together, narrow and the lateral uncertainty in the electron beam must span the two slits. To get a perfect pattern, the beam ought to be centred right between the slits, so that both slits are equally "probable".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy and vanhees71
PainterGuy said:
I don't think this is correct in the context of electron double slit experiment. You don't need to conduct this experiment in isolation at low temperatures. The photons could interact with the electrons on their own all the time but if photon detector or any other detector is used to see which slit the electron goes through then the decoherence takes place and wave function of electron collapses and only a particle is observed. Do I have it correct?
The electrons in the double-slit experiment have been effectively isolated - they cannot be subject to interactions with other systems or particles, other than the intervening slits and the final screen.

The experiment is probably best carried out in a dark vacuum! See:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-experiment-typically-carried-out-in-a-vacuum
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy and vanhees71
PeroK said:
If the beam of electrons had no uncertainty in the lateral direction, then there would be no double slit experiment. Every electron would do the same thing: go through the first slit, go through the second slit or impact the intervening barrier.

In order to have the double slit experiment, the slits must be close together, narrow and the lateral uncertainty in the electron beam must span the two slits. To get a perfect pattern, the beam ought to be centred right between the slits, so that both slits are equally "probable".

Thank you! In the picture below red arrow represents lateral direction and the green arrow represents ideal area where the beam should be aimed.

1608808041368.png
PeroK said:
The electrons in the double-slit experiment have been effectively isolated - they cannot be subject to interactions with other systems or particles, other than the intervening slits and the final screen.

The experiment is probably best carried out in a dark vacuum! See:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-experiment-typically-carried-out-in-a-vacuum
The following is from the source you linked to.

No. As all ready Stated in the comments by Carl Witthoft; "Any experiment is done in an environment which is perfectly transparent to the particles in use."

This means that you will get usable results in air. But it also means, that your results are not accurate. As air is certainly not "perfectly transparent" to photons or electrons; and single photons/electrons do collide to an single atoms in air.
Source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/221814/84624Thank you. I get it that in a double slit experiment with electrons the air is not transparent to the electrons but aren't photons or light transparent to the electrons? You could say that the surrounding light or photons are almost transparent and therefore introduce a very small error but I don't think that this error would result into a total collapse of wave function, right? Yes, if some detector uses photons to detect the passage of electrons thru slits, it would make the wave function collapse entirely and electrons act like normal particles.

Do I make any sense? Please note that I'm just a layman.Helpful link:
 
PainterGuy said:
Thank you. I get it that in a double slit experiment with electrons the air is not transparent to the electrons but aren't photons or light transparent to the electrons? You could say that the surrounding light or photons are almost transparent and therefore introduce a very small error but I don't think that this error would result into a total collapse of wave function, right? Yes, if some detector uses photons to detect the passage of electrons thru slits, it would make the wave function collapse entirely and electrons act like normal particles.

If you have an imperfect experiment, the main difference is that electrons are lost from the experiment. What happens when an electron collides with an air molecule isn't relevant to the experiment.

The electron is a particle. In QM there are no ifs and buts. If you detect the electron, then that is a measurement and the wave-function collapses to a wave-function appropriate to that measurement. You shouldn't think that the electron is "now a particle" and not governed by a wave-function. It always was a particle, and after detection is behaves according to a different wave-function. In this case a single-slit wave-function.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
PeroK said:
If you have an imperfect experiment, the main difference is that electrons are lost from the experiment. What happens when an electron collides with an air molecule isn't relevant to the experiment.

Thank you!

I understand that it should be vacuum but I can't get the point why it should be dark vacuum devoid of any light. Aren't photons transparent to the electrons? I'm sorry to ask you this again.
 
PainterGuy said:
Thank you!

I understand that it should be vacuum but I can't get the point why it should be dark vacuum devoid of any light. Aren't photons transparent to the electrons? I'm sorry to ask you this again.
I can't see why you couldn't get electron-photon collisions.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/photel.html
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
PainterGuy said:
Aren't photons transparent to the electrons?
Electrons and photons can interact, of course. As an example, maybe you could have a look at Compton scattering.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
  • #10
PeroK said:
I can't see why you couldn't get electron-photon collisions.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/photel.html

Agreed that the interaction could take place between electrons and photons. But the question is how much it'd affect the final outcome of the double slit experiment if it was conducted in presence of visible light. No detector is used so no information is gained about which slit the electrons pass thru. Would there still be an interference pattern on the screen for the electrons?
 
  • #11
That's an important point! If you get which-way information in some way by measuring at a sufficient precision through which slit each electron came, the interference pattern vanishes, because gaining the which-way information by measurement necessarily destroys the coherence of the partial waves describing the electrons going through slit 1 and those for the electrons going through slit 2, which means that there's no interference term in the probability from the superposition of these two partial waves.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
  • #12
PainterGuy said:
No detector is used so no information is gained about which slit the electrons pass thru.
Časlav Brukner in "Elegance and Enigma, The Quantum Interviews" (edited by Maximilian Schlosshauer):

"...any increase of partial information about the particle’s path will always mean a corresponding loss in visibility of the interference pattern, and vice versa. Most importantly, it is not relevant whether we read out that information. All that is necessary is for the information to be present somewhere in the universe."

If there is a finite probability that an interaction of the electron with "whatever" could leave behind a trace of a "which-path"-information somewhere in nature - whether you bother to follow the trace or not - leads to an incresing smearing out of the interference pattern.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
  • #13
PainterGuy said:
Agreed that the interaction could take place between electrons and photons. But the question is how much it'd affect the final outcome of the double slit experiment if it was conducted in presence of visible light. No detector is used so no information is gained about which slit the electrons pass thru. Would there still be an interference pattern on the screen for the electrons?
It's not question of the interference pattern. It's a question of whether the electrons get deflected. If you have enough light, then they may all be deflected away from the slits and nothing gets through. You'd need to ask an experimentalist at what point this becomes an issue. Possibly with normal room lighting it's not an issue.

In any case, it would seem to be better to dim the lights at least!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy and vanhees71
  • #14
" could leave behind a trace of a "which-path"-information somewhere in the classical world..."

... which is entirely quantum.

I guess it's too easy from the point of view of QT to come to a point where we don't know what we are talking about and be engulfed in circular thinking.

QM is a successful theory FAPP but dig a little deeper beneath the surface and something's clearly unaccounted for in the interplay between quantum-classical-information-observer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PainterGuy
  • #15
PeroK said:
In any case, it would seem to be better to dim the lights at least!

That's more like it!

Thank you everyone. I really appreciate your help. @Lord Jestocost That quote was really helpful.
 
  • #16
vanhees71 said:
That's an important point! If you get which-way information in some way by measuring at a sufficient precision through which slit each electron came, the interference pattern vanishes [...]
@PainterGuy,
I just wanted to say that this can be done in the case with the double slit experiment and light by putting polarizers in front of the slits.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and PainterGuy
  • #17
DennisN said:
@PainterGuy,
I just wanted to say that this can be done in the case with the double slit experiment and light by putting polarizers in front of the slits.

Sorry but I don't get your point. Are you saying that if polarizers are put in front of the slits in case of double slit experiment with light, the interference pattern would get destroyed? Thanks in advance!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #18
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN, PainterGuy, DrChinese and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K