Double slit Scattering explanation

[Varon]

A single particle can behave like its interfering with itself by means of the following explanation (is it true or can you refute it?):

Ballentine wrote in his 1970 paper "Statistical Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics":

"As in any scattering experiment, quantum theory predicts the statistical frequencies of the various angles through which a particle may be scattered. For a crystal or diffraction grating there is only a discrete set of possible scattering angles because momentum transfer to and from a periodic object is quantized by a multiple of delta p = h/d, where delta p is the component of momentum tranfer parallel to the direction of the periodic displacement d. This result, which is obvious from a solution of the problem in momentum representation, was first discovered by Duane (1923), although this early paper had been much neglected until its revival by Lande (1955, 1965). There is no need to assume that an electron spreads itself, wavelike, over a large region of space in order to explain diffraction scattering. Rather it is the crystal which is spread out, and the electron interacts with the crystal as a whole through the laws of quantum mechanics."

~~~~~~~~~~~~
(my comment)

This behavior of periodic object and quantization of scattering angles can be said to explain what formed the regions of destructive interference where there are no particles detected. Any actual experiment been done with this? Can this account for all interference experiments to date? Can you maybe put a detector in the slit (inside the material of the slit) that won't disturb the scattering and know the which way path yet there is still interference (has no one tried this?)?

 

[SpectraCat]

Can you maybe put a detector in the slit (inside the material of the slit) that won't disturb the scattering and know the which way path yet there is still interference (has no one tried this?)?

Really? You are asking that question NOW? With all of the posting you have done about the double slit experiments and their interpretation in the various flavors of QM, you have not realized that the question you just asked is the very essence of the "problem" with the double slit experiment?

Anyway, the answer to your question is a (rather emphatic) NO! Any "detector" that reveals "which path" information destroys the interference pattern. Check out Dr. Chinese's website for lots of instructive examples and illustrations.

 

[Varon]

Really? You are asking that question NOW? With all of the posting you have done about the double slit experiments and their interpretation in the various flavors of QM, you have not realized that the question you just asked is the very essence of the "problem" with the double slit experiment?

There is a difference here because as described thus "For a crystal or diffraction grating there is only a discrete set of possible scattering angles because momentum transfer to and from a periodic object is quantized by a multiple of delta p = h/d, where delta p is the component of momentum transfer parallel to the direction of the periodic displacement d."

Now with this special knowledge. One can specifically design a detector that can bypass this scattering angles quantization trick. I wonder if such detector has been built that is maybe put inside the material of the slit itself so it won't affect the momentum of the periodic object that has positions at all times.

Anyway, the answer to your question is a (rather emphatic) NO! Any "detector" that reveals "which path" information destroys the interference pattern. Check out Dr. Chinese's website for lots of instructive examples and illustrations.

This is if you assume it is the omnicient wave function that passes thru the slit. But if Ballentine explanation holds and it is a solid particle with all positions like a classical ball and the scattering is due to momentum transfer, then we can design special detectors that can bypass or minimize this momentum disturbance.

For now let's avoid the EPR/Bell's Theorem issues.

 

[Varon]

I just can't understand this passage " momentum transfer to and from a periodic object is quantized by a multiple of delta p = h/d, where delta p is the component of momentum transfer parallel to the direction of the periodic displacement d."

Does this also work with a wave function or just classical object? How is delta p = h/d derived? What is other example of periodic object?

 

[ANT_SB]

Only my second post, so be gentle

I think the double split experiment needs to be explained in another fashion, by thinking outside of the box. Rather than trying to explain the particle being in two places at the same time one must look into how the particle exists, this is what I am looking into in another thread, (well kind of). I think the double split experiment can only be explained by the way the particle exists in space itself, that is, we should not be looking at the particle, but rather how space moves between the slits. :)

I think it is the movement of space itself that determines how the particle exists.

HTH

ANT_SB