Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Why doesn't the plate interact with the particle in double slit?

  1. Jun 13, 2018 #1
    When particles are shot at the plate/screen in the double slit experiment, why doesn't the particles interact with the screen? Shouldn't the plate act as an observer and "collapse" the wave function into one or the other slit? Why does it take a measuring apparatus to know which slit the particle went through? Here's a pic:

    double_slit_setup.png

    The screen is a classical object so shouldn't the particles interact with the screen? The detector plate is classical. It's said Schrodinger's cat will end up in one state or the other because of decoherence. Why doesn't that apply to the screen/plate and the detector plate?

    So if you had the cat in the box, wouldn't it have to be in both states like the screen/plate until a measuring apparatus or human measured it? Let's replace the cat with a tennis ball. If the atom decays, the ball explodes but if it doesn't the ball is fine.

    Without a measuring device, doesn't the ball have to be in two states until a measurement occurs? The screen/plate isn't in a single state. It's not particle through left slit or particle through right slit until measured.

    So why would a cat be dead/alive or the tennis ball be exploded/not exploded until a measuring apparatus measured it? The wave function must contain both states of the cat/ball until it's measured. There may be a single cat/ball in the box but do they have an objective existence until a measurement occurs?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 13, 2018 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Everything that hits the plate is absorbed (or reflected) and doesn't matter for what happens behind the slits.
    It is not feasible to keep such a large and especially a biological object in a state without measurement, but if we ignore practical constraints then we can keep a superposition of these states.
     
  4. Jun 13, 2018 #3

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    Many of them do; as @mfb says, we don't observe those particles because they get absorbed or reflected by the screen and never reach the detector. The only particles we observe at the detector are the ones that don't interact with the screen because they go through the slits.
     
  5. Jun 13, 2018 #4

    An electron is going through the slits?

    Well, the screen is a an object with quantized states. And the quantized states are such that electron passing by does not cause any state change at all. Or alternatively the screen does detect that an electron passed by, but the resolution at which said screen observes its surroundings is not so high that the screen could know through which hole the electron went.
     
  6. Jun 14, 2018 #5
    Thanks for the responses.

    I think it shows decoherence is something that happens after a measurement occurs and decoherence time explain why we don't see the cat or ball in a mixed state. We see this or that after measurement which means Schrodinger's cat is in a mixed live/dead state until a measurement occurs. There would have to be some magic hidden variable that tells the cat how to decohere into one state or the other before a measurement occurs.It would have to know if a particle is emitted or not before the particle is emitted or not.

    Here's a video of the original Thomas Young's double slit experiment and it's done with a box. You have all of these things in the environment plus the classical box yet you still get light acting as a wave. Why didn't the wave function decohere or collapse as it interfered with the classical box?



    So I would think that the quantum state is real and not a cat or ball because a physical cat can't be in a live/dead state.This could mean Susskind and Hawking in his last paper are correct about the Holographic Universe. Here's Susskind, paper the World as a Hologram.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089

    So a hypothetical nano being that can perceive the passage of a nanosecond, might see the cat or ball pop out of existence and there's just this cloud of information. It will then watch as the states transition to a live cat in one universe and a dead cat in another universe. We can't see this transition because of decoherence time.

    If the universe is holographic, then a cat, ball, moon and everything else might be a 3D projection of 2D information. Subatomic particles might be like pixels that illuminate these quantum states.

    This makes sense to me because I don't see how a cat, ball, human or moon can be in one state or the other prior to measurement. After measurement, the outcome is fixed in universe A or universe B because these states can no longer interfere.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  7. Jun 14, 2018 #6

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What wave function? The waves in Young's experiment were (although he didn't know this, because he was working a half-century before the discovery of Maxwell's equations) electromagnetic radiation, oscillations in the electrical and magnetic fields. They aren't the waves of the quantum mechanical wave function and they don't collapse.
     
  8. Jun 14, 2018 #7

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It did. It either collapses to "particle interacted with the box" or "particle did not and continues behind the slits" (or you get many worlds with these results, depending on your favorite interpretation).
     
  9. Jun 14, 2018 #8
    I disagree. Here's a few published papers.

    Solutions of the Maxwell equations and photon wave functions

    https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/div684/fcdc/photon-wave.pdf

    THE PHOTON WAVE FUNCTION

    http://www.cft.edu.pl/~birula/publ/CQO7.pdf


    The Maxwell wave function of the photon

    ABSTRACT James Clerk Maxwell unknowingly discovered a correct relativistic, quantum theory for the light quantum, forty-three years before Einstein postulated the photon’s existence. In this theory, the usual Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. When the non-operator Maxwell field of a single photon is second quantized, the standard Dirac theory of quantum optics is obtained. Recently, quantum-state tomography has been applied to experimentally determine photon wave functions.

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0604/0604169.pdf
     
  10. Jun 14, 2018 #9

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    You shouldn't. The papers you reference basically say: quantum mechanical states of single photons are solutions of Maxwell's Equations. But that does not mean that anything that can be described by a solution of Maxwell's Equations must be a quantum mechanical state of a single photon, which is the claim you are making when you say "I disagree" in response to @Nugatory's post.
     
  11. Jun 14, 2018 #10

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    If we rephrase this question to apply to a double slit experiment done with weak enough light that quantum effects become important, then the answer is that it does--but that decoherence corresponds to photons that don't get observed, because they hit the walls of the box instead of going through the slits and getting observed at the detector.
     
  12. Jun 15, 2018 #11

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The particle either gets absorbed by the screen (with probability ##p##) or passes through the slit (with probability ##1-p##). In the experiment one emits many particles, some which get absorbed while others pass through the slit. In the further analysis of the experiment one ignores the particles which are absorbed by the screen (because they are not interesting) and concentrates only on particles that passed through the slit.
     
  13. Jun 18, 2018 #12
    As the slit through which the particle passes narrows, the particle's momentum becomes less precise, so we might say the screen interacts with the particle in that sense.
     
  14. Jun 19, 2018 #13
    Are the detector electrons (which interact with the incoming particle) loosely bound, i.e. can be readily kicked up to another energy level and cause a signal, whereas the screen electrons are more tightly bound, and thus will not absorb the energy of the incoming particle as readily (basically deflects it)? Thus collapse is less likely to happen at the screen?
     
  15. Jun 19, 2018 #14

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    You're missing the point. When you talk about particles being absorbed by the screen, these are different particles from the ones that are detected at the detector. For a particle that's absorbed by the screen, the screen collapses the particle. We just don't observe it because the screen is not designed that way. If you wanted to directly observe the particles that hit the screen, you could make the screen out of a material similar to what the detector is made out of, so that particles that hit the screen showed a flash of light, the same way particles that hit the detector do. Then you would find that every time the source emits a particle, you either see a flash on the screen, or a flash on the detector, with relative probabilities ##p## and ##1 - p##.
     
  16. Jun 19, 2018 #15

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Or we might say that the particles with the least precise momentum are the ones that are least likely to interact with the screen and be absorbed....
     
  17. Jun 19, 2018 #16
    Sure, that is fine, my question is: can you decrease the probability that the incoming particles will collapse at the screen or not by making the screen out of a material that reflects (deflects? the proper word?) the incoming particles, which I would imagine you do by having a material whose electrons are more tightly bound?
     
  18. Jun 19, 2018 #17

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure what you mean. If the screen doesn't collapse particles that hit it, it's not a screen. The whole point of the double slit experiment is to have a screen with two slits, where "screen" means "collapses particles that hit it", and "slits" means "whatever isn't screen". These are the functional specifications of the experiment, not things you can adjust at will.

    You could certainly run an experiment where you had a "screen" made out of something that didn't collapse particles, but then it wouldn't be a double slit experiment. It would be some other kind of experiment (I can't say what kind because I would need a much more specific description of what you wanted this modified "screen" to actually do).
     
  19. Jun 19, 2018 #18
    Well, suppose you're running this experiment, and without the screen with the double slit in place, you're detecting 100 particles per minute. You put the screen in, and now you're getting 1 particle per minute. Most are being absorbed by the screen, it seems. Suppose you don't like that, and want to increase the number getting through, besides doing things like adjusting the beam, is one option to switch the material that the double slit is made from to another material?
     
  20. Jun 19, 2018 #19

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    Then you don't like running double slit experiments. :wink:

    The point of a double slit experiment is to see the interference pattern. To see that, the size of the slits has to be small in comparison with the size of the screen; in other words, there cannot be a very large percentage of area which is slit and not screen. That means it's unavoidable to have only a small percentage of all the particles go through the slits.
     
  21. Jun 19, 2018 #20
    So I cut two narrow slits in a dark plate (something that readily absorbs photons) and put it in front of my low intensity photon beam, and the number of particles hitting the detector per minute drops from 100 per minute to 1 per minute. Then I cut two identical slits in, say, a piece of polished silver (something that readily reflects photons), and put it in front, I will find the same drop in the number hitting the detector, all other things (beam width, position of slits. etc.) being equal?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook