Quantum Paradox: Interfering Imaginary Slits?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox
Click For Summary
The discussion explores the implications of using imaginary slits in the quantum double-slit experiment, focusing on probability amplitudes and their interference. It posits that even with imaginary slits, indistinguishable final states can still interfere, leading to a valid probability calculation. The concept is further expanded by introducing an imaginary point between the source and the screen, creating two classes of paths that also interfere. The conclusion suggests that the mathematical treatment remains consistent, as indistinguishable paths can be represented collectively. This analysis raises intriguing questions about the nature of quantum paths and interference in theoretical frameworks.
dx
Homework Helper
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
52
Hi, I'm just beginning to learn about the quantum world, so excuse me if this is naive.

Consider the double-slit experiment except that the slits are imaginary. call the slits A and B.

you have a probability amplitude that a particles goes to the point x on the screen via A (an imaginary slit) and also an amplitude that it goes to the screen via B :

< xA | s >
< xB | s >

these two amplitudes are clearly the amplitudes for indistinguishable final states and therefore should interfere. but since the slits are imaginary, you could also write it as a single amplitude <x|s> and the probability is then just |<x|a>|^2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you could object that I am not considering all possible paths to the screen, so let me modify it a little.

instead of two imaginary slits, say we have an imaginary point between the screen and the source. then there are two possible classes of paths to the screen : the amplitude for the paths that go above the point and the ones that go below the point. the final states by the two types of paths are indistinguishable and so the amplitudes interfere with each other.
 
What's the problem? Everything is fine if one uses the amplitude
&lt;x|A|s&gt;+&lt;x|B|s&gt;+... for n paths
which becomes
n&lt;x|A|s&gt;
when n paths are 'indistinguishable'.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
800
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K