Double Slit Experiments with Electrons

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of electrons and photons, emphasizing that both are quantum objects rather than traditional particles or waves. Participants argue against the outdated concept of wave-particle duality, asserting that quantum mechanics (QM) is an approximation of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), where everything is fundamentally a field. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these concepts accurately, particularly for beginners, and references a QFT book that provides deeper insights into the subject.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Mechanics (QM) fundamentals
  • Quantum Field Theory (QFT) principles
  • Understanding of wave-particle duality misconceptions
  • Basic knowledge of electromagnetic fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in detail
  • Explore the implications of Special Relativity on quantum objects
  • Research the role of measurement in quantum systems
  • Investigate advanced quantum communication techniques
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, quantum mechanics enthusiasts, and researchers interested in the foundational concepts of quantum field theory and its implications for understanding the nature of reality.

Marceli
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Are electron also wave as are photons. I can image electron as Gaussian pulse to preserve it dual particle-wave nature. Does it preserve own magnetic and electric field values and wave frequency?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Marceli said:
Are electron also wave as are photons. I can image electron as Gaussian pulse to preserve it dual particle-wave nature. Does it preserve own magnetic and electric field values and wave frequency?
There IS no "wave particle duality". As has been explained on this forum approximately 6,000 times, that's an 80 year old concept that is totally deprecated today (but unfortunately persists due to some mistaken belief that it makes things easier to explain to beginners). Both photons and electrons are quantum objects, NOT particles and NOT waves.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Thank you. Does it means quantum objects are not fields too (waves are mathematical description of fields and other in the space) ? Then it must be something else corresponding to space structure!
 
Last edited:
There's a gluon which holds quarks together.
 
Marceli said:
Thank you. Does it means quantum objects are not fields too (waves are mathematical description of fields and other in the space) ? Then it must be something else corresponding to space structure!
It means that they exhibit some wave characteristics and some particle characteristics, but that does NOT mean they are waves or particles
 
phinds said:
It means that they exhibit some wave characteristics and some particle characteristics, but that does NOT mean they are waves or particles

The correct statement of the wave-particle duality is sometimes it behaves like a particle, and sometimes like a wave - but really its neither.

The reason it's frowned on at the more advanced level is to know when that sometimes applies and exactly what like means you need the full QM machinery - so it hasn't really bought you anything.

Its fine for the stuff like the double slit experiment in beginner texts but once you venture into more advanced realms it quickly looses any value.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
The correct statement of the wave-particle duality is sometimes it behaves like a particle, and sometimes like a wave - but really its neither.
Isn't that exactly what I just said?
 
phinds said:
Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Pretty much.

Its just I understand explaining it in my language.

Sorry if I gave the impression what you wrote was wrong - it wasn't.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #10
OK, got it.
 
  • #11
Thank you for the QFT book I downloaded today. There I have found also that quantum objects are space entities (structure) which confirmed me mine long time feelings of mass origin following:
"By using colors to represent physical fields, we remind ourselves that fields are a property of space, not a separate substance in space."
Brooks, Rodney A. (2010-12-14). Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein (Kindle Locations 306-307). Epic Publications. Kindle Edition.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
  • #12
Marceli said:
Thank you for the QFT book I downloaded today.

You are most welcome.

You are on the right track understanding QM correctly, not the often half truths, and to be blunt sometimes downright junk in popularisations. Remember however this is the most advanced version of QM - and is not what is usually chatted about here - although you can of course discuss it if you wish.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #13
Now I have discrete space, time and single quantum objects or having composite quantum systems which can rise or collapse at discrete time. Now I can image to build communication composite channel to other star to communicate with advance civilisation as us. The fundamental question what is trigger delay time of making single composition? Does measurement will collapse whole composite system or only part to be sustainable? (Technically at first achievement need to entangle whole laser beam to use for quantum communication to make next steps.)
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Some of those issues are treated in the book you downloaded.

Would it be possible for you to read it first then post with some questions?

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
  • #15
Yes.

Merry Christmas
Marceli
 
  • #16
I have finished reading recommended book. It much updated mine knowledge. I like bottom up description phenomena approach, therefore book should in beginning describes somehow what is time and distance. For example, If in quantum field time is discrete then distance must be too. Also seems for me to be nonsense if described fields creates distance, means space.
 
  • #17
Marceli said:
For example, If in quantum field time is discrete then distance must be too.

Neither of those are discrete in QFT. It assumes Special Relativity where in an inertial frame space is assumed Euclidean and time continuous. It's an explicit assumption of that model.

Marceli said:
Also seems for me to be nonsense if described fields creates distance, means space.

Nothing in any of those references says anything even remotely like that.

I get the feeling you are approaching this with preconceived ideas. That's not the best way to come to grips with this stuff.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
454
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K