- #36
Nugatory
Mentor
- 14,783
- 9,268
You can save yourself just a ton of grief by calling that a "barrier"rude man said:There is the screen housing the slits
You can save yourself just a ton of grief by calling that a "barrier"rude man said:There is the screen housing the slits
10-4. 'Barrier' it will be from now on.Nugatory said:You can save yourself just a ton of grief by calling that a "barrier"
I am trying to say that electrons passing through a slit at some distance from the edge of a slit are also affected by the slit screen (they interact with their image charges, which depend on the properties of the slit screen).rude man said:I'm not sure what percentage of emitted electrons make it thru the slits but any that don't are absorbed in,or reflected by, the slit screen. They will not affect the interference pattern. Only electrons that make it thru the slits are recorded on the phosphorescent screen downstream.
You're proposing different interrefence patterns depending on the composition of the barrier with the slits?akhmeteli said:I am trying to say that electrons passing through a slit at some distance from the edge of a slit are also affected by the slit screen (they interact with their image charges, which depend on the properties of the slit screen).
That is correct. Please see the reference in my post #30 in this thread.PeroK said:You're proposing different interrefence patterns depending on the composition of the barrier with the slits?
In fact, we can simplify the experiment to a single slit: you're proposing different single-slit diffraction based not only on the width of the slit but the composition of the barrier?
I guess what we have (for single-slit diffraction) is:akhmeteli said:That is correct. Please see the reference in my post #30 in this thread.
I am not sure. There can be dynamic aspects as well, as an electron spends a finite time near the slit. Something about dispersion relation for the barrier material.PeroK said:I guess what we have (for single-slit diffraction) is:
1) The heuristic explanation using the HUP for position and lateral momentum.
2) A better analysis in terms of the electron being in an infinite square well for a short time as it passes through the slit.
3) A more exact analysis in terms of how precisely (or imprecisely) the barrier provides an infinite square well potential - which may depend on the material of the barrier.
Is that about it?
What exactly are you trying to say here?hutchphd said:There is an entire science niche devoted to LEED (Low Energy Electron Diffraction) mostly to investigate the surfaces of solids including conductors. There is nothing of fundamental interest about wave-particle fru-fru in any these studies and papers.
Answering for hutchphd (who is certainly capable of addressing this without me), and stating the orthodox line:gentzen said:What exactly are you trying to say here?
That you don't see wave-particle duality effects in the measurement data? That depends, the wave effects are often quite dominant (and "undesired") for transmission data. Those occur in practice when you have manufactured a wedge to measure the stopping power at different thicknesses in order to validate your models. Wave effects (or rather phase effects) also occur in backscatter data (this time "desired"), when used to measure dislocaltions, defects, or stress via channeling contrast.
...
Thanks for your answer. It enabled me to learn that "LEED (Low Energy Electron Diffraction)" is actually a specific imaging technique where an energy filter is used to exclude those electrons that lost energy during inelastic scattering events (typically interactions with electrons from the valence or conduction band). So it makes sense that hutchphd called it "an entire science niche". I had misinterpreted LEED as the study of the actual scattering and diffraction of the low energy electrons (inside of the sample), and was a bit surprised why that should be a niche.DrChinese said:Answering for hutchphd (who is certainly capable of addressing this without me)
The double slit experiment is a classic experiment in physics that demonstrates the wave-like behavior of particles. It involves shining a beam of particles, such as electrons or photons, through two parallel slits and observing the resulting interference pattern on a screen.
The width of the slits determines the amount of diffraction, or spreading out, of the particles as they pass through. Wider slits will result in a wider interference pattern, while narrower slits will result in a narrower pattern.
The double slit experiment shows that particles, such as electrons, can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior. This is because the particles pass through the slits as individual particles, but then interfere with each other to create an interference pattern like a wave.
Yes, the double slit experiment has been performed with a variety of particles, including electrons, photons, and even large molecules like buckyballs. The results are consistent with the wave-particle duality principle.
The distance between the slits, also known as the slit separation, determines the spacing of the interference pattern on the screen. A larger slit separation will result in a wider spacing between the bright and dark fringes, while a smaller slit separation will result in a closer spacing.