Double slit experiment with macroscopic size objects

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and implications of conducting double slit experiments with macroscopic objects, specifically using grains of sand. Participants explore whether such experiments could yield interference patterns similar to those observed with quantum particles, and the necessary conditions for such an experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that with appropriately sized and spaced slits, grains of sand could produce an interference pattern, indicating that some paths to the detector are possible while others are not.
  • Another participant mentions that the largest successful double slit experiments have been conducted with buckyballs, which consist of 60 carbon atoms, highlighting the scale of particles involved in such experiments.
  • A participant argues that the nature of quantum interference is fundamentally different from the behavior of macroscopic objects like sand, noting that quantum particles can follow all possible paths, unlike grains of sand.
  • Concerns are raised about the need for a coherent source for the experiment, which may be difficult to achieve with sand grains.
  • One participant calculates the impractical conditions required for a sand grain to exhibit a wavelength suitable for interference, suggesting extreme velocities and temperatures that are not feasible.
  • Another participant asserts that while double slit effects may occur at all scales, they are likely too small to be measurable with macroscopic objects.
  • A humorous analogy is made comparing the measurement of quantum effects in large objects to weighing an elephant to a very fine precision.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the double slit experiment to macroscopic objects. There is no consensus on whether grains of sand could produce observable interference patterns, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of such experiments.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the coherence of the source and the extreme conditions required for macroscopic objects to exhibit quantum interference, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

wonderingingatineau
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi; I'm new to the forum and I hope my question is not out of line.

Has anyone ever done double slit experiments with macroscopic objects such as grains of sand, for instance. It seems to me that with appropriately sized and spaced slits in a mask of appropriate thickness, one should be able to reproduce, in the detector (a gel for instance) a pattern that would resemble an interference pattern.

The size of the grains of sand combined with the correct spacing and size of the slits in a mask of appropriate thickness should illustrate that some paths to the detector are possible while others are not, without the necessity of resorting to wave functions to describe the paths.

I would guess that as the separation between the slits, the size of the slits and the thickness of the mask were altered, so too would the "interference" pattern change in the detector.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The biggest thing they done with the double slit experiment was with buckey balls, which is a form of carbon, it is 60 carbon atoms big, which is pretty big in the atomic scale
 
The whole point of the double slit experiment is that the interfering particles don't behave like grains of sand.

Firstly, the quanta in the 'true' double slit experiment can follow all possible paths, unlike your sand hypothesis.

Secondly, were you to observe a distribution pattern with the sand experiment, the greatest concentrations of sand would probably be approximately (amount of sand from slit 1) + (amount of sand from slit 2) - reasonable, no?

It turns out that quantum interference patterns don't behave like this. Rather, the interference peaks are of the form (amount of 'stuff' from slit 1) x (amount of 'stuff' from slit 2). This is one of the important effects that the experiment is supposed to show.

The double slit experiment is based on entirely different mathematics to this sand experiment, I'm afraid.
 
The problem is that you need a coherent source: it's rather impossible to ensure that that in the case of sand grains.
 
masudr said:
The problem is that you need a coherent source: it's rather impossible to ensure that that in the case of sand grains.
I don't think that's the issue here. We do see double slit interference for a thermal light source.

Recalling De Broglie's relation, assuming a sand grain of mass 1mg and demanding a 1/2 mm wavelength (since I'm sceptical that a wavelength below the particle diameter will work), the sand would need a velocity of 10^-24 m/s. To emphasize the problem (via equipartition theorem) you're looking at maintaining 10^-31 K and (to propagate into a diffraction pattern) preventing any interaction for up to 10^14 centuries..

You should look up the research on buckyball interference.
 
Buckyballs are indeed the reigning heavy weights in the double slit world. It is already plenty weird anything this big can submit to quantum effects. I think the 'double slit' effects occurs at all scales but is too tiny to be measurable at macroscopic scales. Sort of like trying to weigh an elephant to the nearest .001 gram.
 
Chronos said:
Buckyballs are indeed the reigning heavy weights in the double slit world. It is already plenty weird anything this big can submit to quantum effects. I think the 'double slit' effects occurs at all scales but is too tiny to be measurable at macroscopic scales. Sort of like trying to weigh an elephant to the nearest .001 gram.


Or the question they used to get back in the nineteenth century: "Is there diffraction around a chair?".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
697
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K