Double slit photon deflection

In summary, the double slit experiment demonstrates that light is a wave-like phenomenon. With one slit open, the photon lands in one spot but with two slits open, it lands in different spot (one that helps create the interference pattern). There is no force, it is a wave-phenomena. However, with path integral formalism, it can be shown that the path of a photon is determined by the sum of the probability amplitude vectors of all possible paths.
  • #1
Pjpic
235
1
What is the force that acts on a photon that causes its path to deflect when the second slit of the double slit experiment is opened?

Assuming that my understanding of the experiment is in the ball park. With one slit open the photon lands in one place but with two slits open it lands in different spot (one that helps create the interference pattern).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
there is no force, it is a wave-phenomena.

even with one slit you'll have a diffraction pattern...
 
  • #3
Wouldn't a photon land in one place if one slit is open but in another place if both slits are open? If so, why isn't it a force that causes the position to change?
 
  • #4
  • #5
Doesn't Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) offer another explanation? The path of a photon is determined by the sum of the probability amplitude vectors of all possible paths.
Can it thus be stated that the photon's behavior sometimes resembling waves is purely a coincidence?
 
  • #6
brone said:
Doesn't Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) offer another explanation? The path of a photon is determined by the sum of the probability amplitude vectors of all possible paths.
Can it thus be stated that the photon's behavior sometimes resembling waves is purely a coincidence?

Now path integral formalism is not the same thing as QED, but the path integral formalism in Quantum Mechanics is a good way to look at diffraction of particles at slits. See Feynmans Lectures on Physics.
 
  • #7
Pjpic said:
Wouldn't a photon land in one place if one slit is open but in another place if both slits are open? If so, why isn't it a force that causes the position to change?
A photon is not a tiny corpuscle which pass through the slit (or the slits). If it did it, there wouldn't be any interference pattern on the next screen.
Unless you are talking about a special *interpretation* of QM, that is , for ex., DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation. Then the particles are guided by a "quantum potential".
 
  • #8
lightarrow said:
A photon is not a tiny corpuscle

I thought the pattern was built up from where the the point particles hit the screen. And then, when the second slit was open, they hit the screen in different locations. If my understanding is correct (big IF), wouldn't that mean the photons are being acted on?
 
  • #9
brone said:
Doesn't Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) offer another explanation? The path of a photon is determined by the sum of the probability amplitude vectors of all possible paths.
Can it thus be stated that the photon's behavior sometimes resembling waves is purely a coincidence?

Does this mean (in a general sort of a way) that opening up the second slit gives the photons more options and so the pattern becomes different?
 
  • #10
pjpic, nothing acts on the photons, your last post is the best one so far - that the number of possible trajectories changes and thus different pattern.

The "QM-path" is the sum of all possible paths, with each path is weighted with exp(-i S /hbar) Where S is the classical Action. So when hbar is small (i.e when the Action involved are in the classical regime) one obtains the classical path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
 
  • #11
Pjpic said:
I thought the pattern was built up from where the the point particles hit the screen. And then, when the second slit was open, they hit the screen in different locations. If my understanding is correct (big IF), wouldn't that mean the photons are being acted on?
Did you read my post? Photons ARE NOT tiny corpuscles which pass through the slit(s). Even saying "hit the screen" is speculation.
Why do people always think about corpuscles just from the name "photons"?
 
  • #12
lightarrow said:
Did you read my post? Photons ARE NOT tiny corpuscles which pass through the slit(s). Even saying "hit the screen" is speculation.
Why do people always think about corpuscles just from the name "photons"?

Why? Probably because they are localized when they are observed in this experiment. In addition, the quantum nature of light has been demonstrated: photons are discrete, even though they sometimes behave like waves. (i.e. There is no such thing as half a photon.)
 
  • #13
Does this mean (in a general sort of a way) that opening up the second slit gives the photons more options and so the pattern becomes different?

I like that. But clearly it doesn't explain much if you begin by thinking of a single photon as a "ping pong" type affair since it's difficult to figure out how one photon can pass through two slits simultaneously!

Brian Greene has extensive discussion about what the double slit means, or doesn't, in FABRIC OF THE COSMOS...he utilizes four different explanations/interpretations around page 205 (Reality and Quantum Measurement Problems) and mentions there are MANY others...He does mention that decoherence, still under development for several decades, is often viewed as a likely ingredient in any viable and final solution.

So don't think any here have THE absolute final and unambiguous answer with which all physicsts will ready agree!.
 
  • #14
DrChinese said:
Why? Probably because they are localized when they are observed in this experiment. In addition, the quantum nature of light has been demonstrated: photons are discrete, even though they sometimes behave like waves. (i.e. There is no such thing as half a photon.)
Instead I think that books and physicists don't stress enough the fact we shouldn't imagine photons as little balls.
 
  • #15
lightarrow said:
Instead I think that books and physicists don't stress enough the fact we shouldn't imagine photons as little balls.

Probably true! They are strange little critters.
 
  • #16
lightarrow said:
Instead I think that books and physicists don't stress enough the fact we shouldn't imagine photons as little balls.
the reason why we think of individual photons as like little balls is because that in nature waves are made of tiny particles like how water is made of tiny water molecules. so if we think of photons as waves we are forced to think that it's made of smaller particles. so where will it end.
 
  • #17
T.O.E Dream said:
the reason why we think of individual photons as like little balls is because that in nature waves are made of tiny particles like how water is made of tiny water molecules. so if we think of photons as waves we are forced to think that it's made of smaller particles. so where will it end.
This could be an explanation for not very cultured people. Someone who, at least, studied at high school, knows that those tiny water molecules are made of atoms, which are made of fields and of other particles, and not of "tiny particles" only. Soon one asks him/her self if those tiny particles, in turn, are made of other fields and particles, and soon discovers it's so. Then the question is: who was "born" before, fields or particles?
Quantum Field Theory answers this question:
http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m246.pdf

<<3b. Quantum Field Theory's Description.
The principle features of the quantum field theory description of light may be stated thusly:
1. Electromagnetic field components, E and B , still obey Maxwell's equations. When crossed and sinusoidally fluctuating, they still form an electromagnetic wave traveling at speed c. However, the E and B values no longer give exact forces on charged particles,
hence no longer predict exact energy and momentum transfer rates to those particles.
2. An electromagnetic wave can only transfer energy and momentum to and from charged particles in increments fixed by the wave's frequency: [tex]\Delta E = h\nu; \Delta p = h\nu/c[/tex].
3. The actual times and places of these energy and momentum transfers cannot be predicted exactly, but the probabilities that they will occur in specified time and space intervals can be precisely calculated. These precise probabilities are linearly proportional to the wave's electromagnetic field intensities.
The first statement delineates wavelike properties of light; the second, particle-like properties.
 

What is the double slit experiment?

The double slit experiment is a classic experiment in physics that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light and other particles. It involves shining a beam of particles, such as photons, through two parallel slits and observing the resulting interference pattern on a screen.

How does the double slit experiment demonstrate wave-particle duality?

The double slit experiment shows that particles, like photons, can exhibit wave-like behavior by producing an interference pattern on a screen. This suggests that particles have a wave nature, in addition to their well-known particle nature.

What causes the interference pattern in the double slit experiment?

The interference pattern in the double slit experiment is caused by the superposition of waves from the two slits. When the waves overlap, they either amplify or cancel each other out, creating the characteristic pattern of bright and dark fringes.

How does the distance between the slits affect the interference pattern?

The distance between the slits affects the interference pattern by changing the spacing of the fringes. The closer the slits are to each other, the wider the fringes will be on the screen. Conversely, the farther apart the slits are, the narrower the fringes will be.

Can the double slit experiment be performed with other particles besides photons?

Yes, the double slit experiment can be performed with other particles besides photons, such as electrons, neutrons, and even molecules. This further supports the idea of wave-particle duality, as these particles also exhibit wave-like behavior in the experiment.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
720
Replies
19
Views
885
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
594
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
743
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top