# Is the following a simpler viable alternative to Feynman's interpretation of the double slit experiment

Feynman suggested that there is an infinity of trajectories for a single electron travelling from the source to the phosphorescent screen. He said that one electron goes through both holes (Fig 4.10, page 110, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene).

Is it possible that there is a simpler explanation?

The double slits bear a parallel resemblance to the characteristics of a simple slot antenna equal to a simple dipole antenna. Can the incident electrons induce a charge into the area surrounding the slot and cause an electric field to be created between the slot edges. This would serve to convert the electron from a transverse particle wave to a longitudinal magnetic wave which is then radiated forward. The interference pattern is created as the output of each slot interferers with each other producing the interference pattern on the phosphorus screen. It would also explain why, when a sensor is introduced to monitor what is happening in the slit, it causes the magnetic wave to change back to a particle wave, because it has disturbed the field in the slots.

-
see my answer to a similar question here physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53959/wave-particle-duality/… .Since the quote of Feynman newer experiments imply that it is the measurement that is spoiling the interference by changing the boundary conditions. More careful experiments show that one can detect the slit the photon went through by ingenious methods. The interference is in the probability distribution of the photons in the experiment. Not in a mystical mass spread, –  anna v Feb 17 at 14:31

Neutrinos don't have an electric field. Also, the massive particles you mentioned do not travel at the speed of light. In the double slit experiments they are travelling much much slower than the speed of light. The Compton wavelength of the electron is on the order of $10^{-12}m$ but the slit width used to reveal quantum interference is on the order of $10^{-6}m$ (a million times larger). The process you are describing does not make sense. If you could put it into equations then maybe it would be more clear. –  xxx Feb 18 at 15:49