What is the secret behind the double slit experiment and how has it been solved?

[Varon]

According to Richard Feynman, the double-slit experiment contains the only mystery of quantum mechanics. After we have unveiled the mystery, we will be able to understand quantum mechanics.

Someone has allegedly solved the double slit mystery and unveiled the secret of Quantum Mechanics.

It goes like this.

Initially the emitter emits one electron which is really n electron quantum field which we can say is like a wave. When it reaches the slits, the electron quantum field splits in two. But how come the detector only detects one electron. The secret is that the detector contains many electrons as ingredients in the detection. So what happens is the quantum field or wave simultaneously inpinge on all area of the detector at once.. and one electron in the detector is triggered! This made us assume that this one electron triggered is the same one as the initial electron sends off. But it is not! Herein lies the solution to the 80 year old mystery of the double slit experiment! So claimed Arnold Neumaier. For details. See this thread in Independent Research.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492

Now some basic questions.

Is it true that all detectors have electrons as their ingredients in the detection event? We know photosensor has electron and photoelectric effect has to do with the electrons in the detector. So the secret of the double slit is the emitter didn't send a solid particle with a classical trajectory to either slit. But pure quantum wave that splits after reaching the slits and then trigger one of the electrons in the detector. But why only one detector is triggered.

Neumaier explained:

The electron is always a quantum field. The quantum field can be regarded to describe a particle if and only if the field has a nonzero expectation only in a region small compared to the whole system considered. Thus we may say that the field is a particle as long as this condition is satisfied. Because of the dispersion of the field caused by the slits, this condition stops to be satisfied almost immediately after the field (with support large enough to cover both slits) passed the double slit. Thus it is no longer justified to talk about a particle.

The situation is similar as with a sphere of glass. If you throw it, you may regard it as a particle. But if it hits an obstacle and fragmentizes, it is no longer localized enogh to deserve the name of a particle.

The field passes the doulbe slit in a fashion similar as a water wave would do, except with quantum corrections."

I asked: "After it pass thru the slits, it became smeared. Now how does the smeared field converge back into a single electron detected at the screen?"

Neumaier answered:

It doesn't. It remains smeared. But one of the electrons in the detector fires and
(after magnification) gives rise to a measurable current.. This will happen at exactly one place. Thus it _seems_ that the electron has arrived there, while in fact it has arrived everywhere within its extent.

If a water wave reaches a dam with a hole in it, the water will come out solely through this hole although the wave reached the dam everywhere. A detector is (in a vague way) similar to such a dam with a large number of holes, of which only one per electron can respond because of conservation of energy.

Questions:
Can anyone think of detectors that don't use electrons? Or think of a unique setup that can refute the above theory? Double slit experiment is very basic and this is why I post it here.

 

[camboy]

According to Richard Feynman, the double-slit experiment contains the only mystery of quantum mechanics. After we have unveiled the mystery, we will be able to understand quantum mechanics.

Someone has allegedly solved the double slit mystery and unveiled the secret of Quantum Mechanics.

It goes like this.

<snip>

I'm sorry - this sounds like nonsense to me. He says only 1 electron in the detector responds because of conservation of energy. What happens when the screen is the inner surface of a hollow sphere a light-year across, and the emitter is a point source dead in the middle emitting a spherical moving quantum field? How is the energy transported across space via the quantum field? Across the whole wave front? In which case, what kind of process involving conservation of energy takes place around the whole surface of the sphere instantaneously when the wave hits the screen? How does this work? if you wish to provide an 'interpretation' one must do more than simply state something happens.

As far as I am aware, the only interpretation which completely and unambiguously resolves the double slit problem - in the sense that Feynman seems to mean - is the de Broglie-Bohm theory. This was pointed out long ago in no uncertain terms by John Bell. The 'quantum field' represented by the wave function is accompanied by a particle or set of particles, whose trajectory is influenced by the quantum field. The wave goes through both slits, the particle goes through one. The particle hitting the screen is the thing that makes it glow, hence it is discrete. Looking at the dynamics of the particles, you see they are more likely to hit the screen where there is constructive interference in the wave. Trivial. I've solved the only mystery of quantum mechanics - thank you very much (I'm aware no-one cares).

Unfortunately Professor Neumaier mode of communication often involves repeatedly restating half-formed ideas and blatant misrepresentations as if they were obvious facts - in a way which I'm sorry to say that I (and others) find incredibly arrogant. For an example, see the recent and quite ridiculous 'The Refutation of Bohmian Mechanics' thread, where he repeatedly trashes de Broglie-Bohm theory and implies its practitioners are fools - without apparently having read most of the literature or even having properly understood its most basic ideas. You will see that he never admits to being wrong about anything. When he is - which is often - he simply moves on to the next misrepresentation with no further comment. This is not the only recent thread where many people have fundamentally disagreed with him on very basic issues, and I see no reason not to do so in the quotes you supply above.

 

[Varon]

Can't we have a c60 or c430 buckyball experiment where what is detected on the screen are buckballs and not electrons? Does present buckyball experiment use detectors that are composed of electrons?

 

[Varon]

I'm sorry - this sounds like nonsense to me. He says only 1 electron in the detector responds because of conservation of energy. What happens when the screen is the inner surface of a hollow sphere a light-year across, and the emitter is a point source dead in the middle emitting a spherical moving quantum field? How is the energy transported across space via the quantum field? Across the whole wave front? In which case, what kind of process involving conservation of energy takes place around the whole surface of the sphere instantaneously when the wave hits the screen? How does this work? if you wish to provide an 'interpretation' one must do more than simply state something happens.

As far as I am aware, the only interpretation which completely and unambiguously resolves the double slit problem - in the sense that Feynman seems to mean - is the de Broglie-Bohm theory. This was pointed out long ago in no uncertain terms by John Bell. The 'quantum field' represented by the wave function is accompanied by a particle or set of particles, whose trajectory is influenced by the quantum field. The wave goes through both slits, the particle goes through one. The particle hitting the screen is the thing that makes it glow, hence it is discrete. Looking at the dynamics of the particles, you see they are more likely to hit the screen where there is constructive interference in the wave. Trivial. I've solved the only mystery of quantum mechanics - thank you very much (I'm aware no-one cares).

Unfortunately Professor Neumaier mode of communication often involves repeatedly restating half-formed ideas and blatant misrepresentations as if they were obvious facts - in a way which I'm sorry to say that I (and others) find incredibly arrogant. For an example, see the recent and quite ridiculous 'The Refutation of Bohmian Mechanics' thread, where he repeatedly trashes de Broglie-Bohm theory and implies its practitioners are fools - without apparently having read most of the literature or even having properly understood its most basic ideas. You will see that he never admits to being wrong about anything. When he is - which is often - he simply moves on to the next misrepresentation with no further comment. This is not the only recent thread where many people have fundamentally disagreed with him on very basic issues, and I see no reason not to do so in the quotes you supply above.

The problem with Bohmian Mechanics is very simple. It violates Special Relativity severely. in BM, the wave function is sensitive to all configurations of all particles in the entire universe with billions and billions of galaxies at once. For example, if a particle changes a spin 200 billion light years away, an electron on Earth is aware of it simultaneously. This is the problem of BM and why so many don't like it including me. How do you resolve this clear violation and almost total rejection of special relativity?

 

[SpectraCat]

The problem with Bohmian Mechanics is very simple. It violates Special Relativity severely. in BM, the wave function is sensitive to all configurations of all particles in the entire universe with billions and billions of galaxies at once. For example, if a particle changes a spin 200 billion light years away, an electron on Earth is aware of it simultaneously. This is the problem of BM and why so many don't like it including me. How do you resolve this clear violation and almost total rejection of special relativity?

It's not a violation of SR, because you can't know about such an instantaneous change without comparing data from both ends of the information channel. That information must be transmitted at slower than light speeds. So it's all about context.

EDIT: One other point .. standard Q.M. suffers from exactly the same issue .. that was the point of the famous EPR gedanken. So this is hardly a problem with Bohmian mechanics.

 

[Varon]

It's not a violation of SR, because you can't know about such an instantaneous change without comparing data from both ends of the information channel. That information must be transmitted at slower than light speeds. So it's all about context.

EDIT: One other point .. standard Q.M. suffers from exactly the same issue .. that was the point of the famous EPR gedanken. So this is hardly a problem with Bohmian mechanics.

But it differs from standard QM which is all about randomness. In Bohmian, the configuration update is real time although it works behind the scene. This still violates the spirit of relativity.

Also it makes it arbitrary. It's like spacetime is like a stage only for matter and what is behind it is instantaneous?

 

[camboy]

The problem with Bohmian Mechanics is very simple. It violates Special Relativity severely. in BM, the wave function is sensitive to all configurations of all particles in the entire universe with billions and billions of galaxies at once. For example, if a particle changes a spin 200 billion light years away, an electron on Earth is aware of it simultaneously. This is the problem of BM and why so many don't like it including me. How do you resolve this clear violation and almost total rejection of special relativity?

Oh Christ.. I whine about Neumaier's behaviour, and then you go and do exactly the same thing. What is the point? I mean, seriously, what is the point? If you don't understand why deBB doesn't violate Special Relativity, then why not just ask me? Why do you have to express your question in the form of a nasty accusative rant - when it's quite clear that you don't understand the first thing about deBB?

By the way, I just solved the Only Mystery of Quantum Mechanics (TM) in the terms that Feynman stated and - of course - you don't care and you don't even address my argument. Why did you even start the thread?

 

[Varon]

Oh Christ.. I whine about Neumaier's behaviour, and then you go and do exactly the same thing. What is the point? I mean, seriously, what is the point? If you don't understand why deBB doesn't violate Special Relativity, then why not just ask me? Why do you have to express your question in the form of a nasty accusative rant - when it's quite clear that you don't understand the first thing about deBB?

By the way, I just solved the Only Mystery of Quantum Mechanics (TM) in the terms that Feynman stated and - of course - you don't care and you don't even address my argument. Why did you even start the thread?

nasty accusative rant? Naw. I wrote it to get your feedback. Come on. Don't react so much to simple innocent remarks. Note QM is not like Republican vs Dominican or subjective where the strongest argument wins. In QM, Hard data and facts and experimental supports win.

I have read up on Bohmian Mechanics many times. All my books are pop-sci books because we novices who are not acquainted with the mathematics can only argue on the ontological lines and not pragmatic.

Anyway. Just address the questions. Don't react so much. It's not meant to state you are wrong. But just to get your comment and feedback.

So you believe that a particle changing a spin 200 billion light years away can be detected by the bohmian wave function here on earth? Don't you think this establish absolute time and space??

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...