Proving Wave-Particle Duality in Proton Twin Slit Experiment?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the experimental confirmation of wave-particle duality in larger particles, specifically protons and neutrons, in the context of the twin slit experiment. Participants explore whether these larger particles can exhibit self-interference similar to electrons and photons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether single protons or neutrons have been shown to interfere with themselves in a manner akin to electrons and photons in the twin slit experiment.
  • Another participant references A. Zeilinger's work on the interference of fullerenes and W. Ketterle's experiments with rubidium atom condensates as examples of larger particles exhibiting wave-like behavior.
  • A different participant discusses the transition between quantum and classical regimes, suggesting that the classical limit can be approached through path integrals and the stationary phase approximation, but notes challenges in accounting for macroscopic quantum phenomena.
  • The same participant emphasizes the importance of dimensional quantities related to \hbar in determining the regime of the system being studied.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of wave-particle duality to larger particles, with some citing experimental evidence while others focus on theoretical considerations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which larger particles can exhibit wave-like behavior.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations in defining the quantum and classical regimes and the complexities involved in macroscopic quantum phenomena, indicating that these factors may influence the interpretation of experimental results.

ianbell
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Have single protons or neutrons or anything "bigger" been experimentally confirmed to "interfere with themselves" and "act like waves" the way single electrons and photons do, in experiments such as the twin slit expt?

All I have been able to find on this is the somewhat lame
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/double-slit.html.

TIA.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ianbell said:
Have single protons or neutrons or anything "bigger" been experimentally confirmed to "interfere with themselves" and "act like waves" the way single electrons and photons do, in experiments such as the twin slit expt?

All I have been able to find on this is the somewhat lame
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/double-slit.html.

TIA.
Check out A. Zeilinger who has done interferences of fullerens (60-, 70- atoms), and W. Ketterle who interfered two condensates (10^5-10^6) of rubidium atoms.
 
I think questions like this come up due to issues with where the "quantum" or "classical" regime are. So I'll try to answer this question by answering that question.

From the standpoint of classical mechanics, the quantum regime occurs when

[tex]S = \int_{t_0}^{t_f} dt L(q, \dot{q},t) \sim \hbar[/tex]

that is, when the classical action gets on the order of a few integer multiples of [tex]\hbar[/tex]. This analysis fails for macroscopic quantum phenomena, such as superconductivity or superfluids.

From a quantum mechanical standpoint, the classical limit is achieved from the standpoint of the propagator by looking at

[tex]K \sim \int \mathcal{D}[q(t)] e^{i S/\hbar}[/tex]

Now, to obtain the classical limit from here, we look at [tex]\hbar \rightarrow 0[/tex]. From the stationary phase approximation (see Erdelyi, for example), we know that the path that contributes the most to the integral is that for which [tex]\delta S = 0[/tex], that is, for stationary action. But that's just D'Alembert's principle, that

[tex]\delta S = \delta \int_{t_0}^{t_f} dt L(q, \dot{q}, t) = 0[/tex]

from which we obtain the Lagrange equations of motion. This is how one might try to get at the classical limit from the standpoint of path integrals. Unfortunately, again, it is very difficult to account for superconductors and other macroscopic quantum mechanical effects in this manner.

I think the key is to be able to look at the dimensional quantities that depend on [tex]\hbar[/tex], such as the correlation length or whatnot, that are intrinsic to the problem, and in the case where such dimensional considerations allow one to consider [tex]\hbar[/tex] to be very small, those problems exist in the "classical regime".

Crossover approximations such as WKB are themselves quite interesting, but I have to run off to an appointment now. Perhaps someone else could take that.
 
zbyszek said:
Check out A. Zeilinger who has done interferences of fullerens (60-, 70- atoms), and W. Ketterle who interfered two condensates (10^5-10^6) of rubidium atoms.

Thanks. Just what I wanted.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K