Double slit interpretation - what is the mainstream view?

In summary: Besides, the orthogonality between the states of the measuring apparatus in...(measurement)?Yes, it's necessary for the interference to be killed.
  • #1
peteratcam
172
1
Can someone summarise what is the currently accepted interpretation of how measurement affects the interference pattern in a double slit experiment? (Answers which say things like 'the electron knows if it is being observed' are not acceptable - :-) ) To quote from the PF rules, I'm looking for "the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community", with regards the double slit measurement thing.

The general internet is full of so many crank opinions on this and the literature is far too big and also full of speculative nonsense. There must be someone here who has the right description and is able to summarise succinctly?

I have my own explanation, which I'm hoping is the majority view among people of good sense.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The current interpretation (copenhagen interpretation) is that observation collapses the wavefunction into either moving through one or the other slit, and thus no interference occurs. It's not that the electron "knows" it's being observed, it's that the act of observation is forcing a collapse of the wavefunction.

It's not a very intuitive, or satisfying result, I know. :P

There are a myriad other interpretations (e.g. many worlds, decoherence, ensemble, piolet wave, etc)
 
  • #3
Matterwave said:
There are a myriad other interpretations (e.g. many worlds, decoherence, ensemble, piolet wave, etc)
Decoherence is not an interpretation. Decoherence is an experimental fact (predicted by the Schrodinger equation) that plays an important role in all interpretations, especially in many world and pilot wave.
 
  • #4
To clarify, I suppose I should have said, what is the mainstream view on the mechanism by which measurement destroys interference, rather than the interpretation.

I firmly believe that (almost) everything is describably by unitary time evolution according to the TDSE, so I don't like collapsing wavefunctions.
 
  • #5
peteratcam said:
Can someone summarise what is the currently accepted interpretation of how measurement affects the interference pattern in a double slit experiment? ... There must be someone here who has the right description and is able to summarise succinctly?
It is generally accepted that measurement affects interference pattern through decoherence. Decoherence explains why quantum statistics may be replaced by classical statistics. However, it solves only a part of the problem. Decoherence does not explain how and why the particle ends up in one particular state among many states allowed by classical statistics. There are many interpretations that suggest an answer to this question, but NOBODY knows with certainty which answer is the correct one.
 
  • #6
Sorry about my mixup with decoherence, it's been a while...

I believe there are models that include the observer within the TDSE and observations are therefore wavefunctions interacting with wavefunctions or some such. I'm not very familiar with this.

In the mainstream interpretation, the mechanism by which wavefunction collapses is unknown. It's just saying for example if the atom could either be in room A or room B. Before you look, there is a chance it is in A or room B (both rooms contain a finite probability), but if you look in room A and find the atom, it's in room A, it's not in room B, and vice versa...(the probability distribution collapses)...
 
  • #7
peteratcam said:
To clarify, I suppose I should have said, what is the mainstream view on the mechanism by which measurement destroys interference, rather than the interpretation.

I firmly believe that (almost) everything is describably by unitary time evolution according to the TDSE, so I don't like collapsing wavefunctions.
As I said, the answer to your question is - DECOHERENCE.
For more details see
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=354228
 
  • #8
Demystifier said:
As I said, the answer to your question is - DECOHERENCE.
For more details see
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=354228

So I looked at a number of those links. Only the Rev Mod Phys article mentioned entanglement much.

My view is that the electron and the which-path measuring apparatus become entangled and hence interference pattern disappears. I don't see the need to include a macroscopic number of degrees of freedom which seems to be the point with decoherence.

Eg:
[tex]
\phi_1(x)+\phi_2(x)\rightarrow|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2+Re(\phi_1\phi_2)
[/tex]
The last term is the interference.
whereas if we entangle the different slit states with orthogonal states of the measuring apparatus (ie, make a good measurement):
[tex]
\phi_1(x)|1\rangle+\phi_2(x)|2\rangle\rightarrow|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2
[/tex]
No intereference this time.

It seems obvious to me that this is what's going on - measurement doesn't collapse a wavefunction, it just entangles the measuring device and the system of interest, and by orthogonality of the states of the measuring device all interference terms are killed and classical behaviour emerges.

Is this the same idea as decoherence?
Thanks.
 
  • #9
peteratcam said:
It seems obvious to me that this is what's going on - measurement doesn't collapse a wavefunction, it just entangles the measuring device and the system of interest, and by orthogonality of the states of the measuring device all interference terms are killed and classical behaviour emerges.

Is this the same idea as decoherence?
Yes it is. But you need a macroscopic number of the degrees of freedom, because it provides the stability of orthogonality and decoherence. Otherwise, the original coherence could be restored.

Besides, the orthogonality between the states of the measuring apparatus in not exact. They are only approximately orthogonal, and the approximation is better for a larger number of the degrees of freedom. When their number is macroscopic, then the approximation is almost perfect.

To summarize, decoherence as you described it may work even without a macroscopic number of the degrees of freedom, but when this number is macroscopic then decoherence is almost inevitable.
 
Last edited:

Related to Double slit interpretation - what is the mainstream view?

1. What is the double slit experiment?

The double slit experiment is a classic experiment in quantum mechanics that involves sending a beam of particles, such as photons or electrons, through two parallel slits and observing the resulting pattern on a screen behind the slits.

2. What is the mainstream view of the double slit interpretation?

The mainstream view of the double slit interpretation is that it demonstrates the wave-particle duality of particles. This means that particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave as either particles or waves depending on how they are observed.

3. How does the double slit experiment support the mainstream view?

The double slit experiment supports the mainstream view by showing that particles can interfere with each other, creating a diffraction pattern similar to waves. This suggests that particles have wave-like properties, which is a key aspect of the wave-particle duality theory.

4. Are there any alternative interpretations of the double slit experiment?

Yes, there are alternative interpretations of the double slit experiment, such as the many-worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation. These interpretations offer different explanations for the results of the experiment and the nature of particles.

5. How does the double slit experiment impact our understanding of quantum mechanics?

The double slit experiment is a crucial experiment in quantum mechanics that has greatly influenced our understanding of the behavior of particles at the subatomic level. It has led to the development of the wave-particle duality theory and has challenged our traditional understanding of the physical world.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
105
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
9
Replies
309
Views
10K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
26
Views
2K
Back
Top