New answers tagged

0

Let's consider that there is no zoom phenomenon. Its coefficient may be included at the last stage. if the intensity of a laser is $X$ then the intensity of the light in each slit is $X/2$ Not exact. Intensity has variable forms but it is always a quantity of light by unit of surface or of solid angle ( in steradian ). Irradiance in $W/m^2$ Radiant ...


-1

I can't comment on Hobson; I haven't read it. But I can comment on the ideas that you posted. This is not an easy subject to unravel. Without looking too hard you'll find seemingly endless discussions. In my opinion, it boils down to what you mean by the words "particle". If your picture of a particle is a little bit of "something" that has an ...


0

how can fields explain why, when you watch which slit the "particle" goes through, does the interference pattern disappear? a) Quantum field theory is a different mathematical tool and gives the same calculations as with simple first quantization calculations except it is just extremely more efficient in setting up solutions for complicated boundary ...


-3

After reading Art Hobson's article titled, "There are no particles, there are only fields" published in The American Journal of Physics in 2013, I'm wondering what other experts think of his main thesis I think there's some merit in it, but there's plenty wrong with it too. See his paper on the arXiv where you can read this: the Schroedinger field is a ...


0

Interference pattern will emerge statistically. Single electron experiment will result in a single electron appearing on the screen, but the probability for this electron to appear at a certain point on the screen will be governed by interference of probabilities of a single-slit experiment. As a result, sending more electrons through a double-slit , one ...


-1

Yes we can , that is called single photon double slit experiment But its general question that how single particle can can interfere with itself so physicst tryies to cheque that by observing the phenomenon but an intresting think happen , pattern get vanish as it observed so its mistery as i think.... but in recen i read a article of prof. Stinberg who has ...


0

G.I. Taylor did the first such experiment in 1909; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._I._Taylor And yes, the statistical pattern of many repetitions shows interference. The same result holds for similar experimental setups; I've done it with electrons where the slits were provided by ultrathin gold films. How does this happen? It is just a fundamental ...


0

First, we need to define the interference pattern. It is the pattern formed by the fundamental frequency of the wave properties of the electron, passing simultaneously through two slits with "suitable" width and separation distance. When a "detector" is placed on one slit (A), it takes away some of the energy and allows only a higher harmonic (with lower ...


1

It means that fringes can be seen everywhere to the right of the double slit arrangement if the source is to the left of the double slit. They occur because coherent waves for the two slits actually overlap and hence form an interference pattern to the right of the double slits. For some arrangement used to show interference the coherent waves from ...


2

The OP's confusion seems to stem from the incorrect assumption that if my detector isn't triggered I cannot see how one could argue it interacted [with the electron] Just because the detector sometimes does not click, does not mean that there is no interaction at all. A good way to think about this is in terms of continuous measurement. This and this ...


2

The problem is that you are treating quantum objects as both classical waves and classical particles simultaneously. More specifically, you talk about them passing through one slit or the other and sensing which slit an electron goes through. But in order for the interference pattern to emerge, the electrons have to pass through both slits at a time. We can ...


1

It is obvious that moving wave fronts will made moving fringes on an observer screen, will they not? If the detector screen is in the yz plane and the slits are at particular y values and the light is originally going in the x direction, and you had light polarized in the z direction then indeed the electric field hitting a single point on the screen ...


1

For a classical double slit, there is a classical electromagnetic field and so there is an electric and a magnetic field at every point in space. But the phase that is drawn is more like a tracer. If you had a wave like $A\sin((x-vt)/\lambda)$ then it has an amplitude, a speed, and a wavelength. You could draw the place where it is $+A$ and see how that ...


2

Of course they move. How could they not? I suspect that what is confusing you is that you are mis-interperting what a bright fringe on the screen is. If you are imagining that a bright fringe represents a point of instantaneous high amplitude then you have the wrong idea: a bright fringe is a point of maximum optical energy delivery (power). The actual ...


1

My question is, why doesn't interference occur with the observer here? Aren't there still probability waves between the quantum objects going through each slit, and shouldn't these waves interfere and create fringes of some sort? The results of any experiment when modeled with mathematics is absolutely dependent on the boundary conditions, which pick up ...


0

With an observer there are no longer two probability waves travelling through each slit. There is a particle exiting one slit, which can be described by having some probability of where it will hit on the other side but there is no "second wave" from the other slit for it to interfere with. Another way to make it a little easier. If you imagine the ...


2

NOTE: This answer has now been merged into Understanding the quantum eraser from a quantum information stand point (part IV). Let me start by copying the first part of my previous answer which describes the circuit model of a double-slit or other interference experiment; then, I will try to describe the delayed choice setting (the way I understand it). ...


0

Strictly, you can't just say the light behind a slit is coherent. You can say it has a certain coherence time $\tau$, meaning it can interfere with a copy of itself which was delayed by time $\tau$ it has spatial coherence with respect to the light behind another slit, meaning they have a (somewhat) fixed phase difference and can interfere with each other ...


6

The answer is structured as follows: I will first give the quantum circuit corresponding to a normal double slit (or interferometer), then the circuit where the which-way information has been recorded, a circuit where the which-way information is first recorded and then erased in a unitary way, and finally a circuit where the which-way information is ...


0

A point source has a spherical wave front with the intensity falling as 1/r^2. The fronts are in constant phases because there is no dependence on theta and phi in the intensity. For an aperture with a width see the question and answer here and links therein. It depends on the width of the slit, the frequency and the coherence length.


1

The interference pattern is not destroyed by the lens or the focal point, because in this case it never existed. The moment the lens is placed between the slits and the detector, all particles traveling through the slits will only behave like particles passing through a slit then a mirror and then hitting one of 2 points on the detector. Designing the ...


2

Building on a comment by CuriousOne (who, honestly, should leave off commenting since he only ever writes answers in then anyway): A photon is not an object in and of itself. A photon is an excitation in a quantum field, which is not localized but fills space. In the double slit experiment you have an emitting source, a mask with two slits, and a ...


1

As I understood two photons will not interact with each other to produce interference pattern rather one photon behaves like a wave near two slits and go through both holes at same time. It looks like particle is spread in space and behave like a wave and will go through both holes at the same time to produce interference pattern.


1

Your explanation makes no sense. To see why, suppose you have two slits and you record a particular interference pattern as a result: a series of light and dark bars. If you then cut an additional pair of slits half way between the first pair of slits, the resulting pattern may have some dark bars where formerly there were light bars. The only way this can ...


5

Nope. The important thing about the double slit experiment isn't that you find a wavy pattern on the screen, it's that the output on the screen is not equal to the output you get with only one slit open, plus the output you get with only the other slit open. The particular pattern that one slit makes by itself doesn't matter.


1

We can't explain it like you want, because try closing one of the slits first. Then do the experiment. Then do the same for the other and do the experiment. Classically, you'd expect, that both slits will function independently, hence you won't receive an interference pattern but instead a summation of intensities from each slit individually. But this isn't ...


0

Your explanation has a tennis ball that is a body and you are influencing it with forces , but in reality particles like electrons , photons even complete atoms show this behavior because everything behaves like a wave of some wavelength , it is just that as the particles become macroscopic , the effect is minimized . The "famous photo" when you notice is ...



Top 50 recent answers are included