Timeline for 2-slit experiment
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2014 at 9:05 | comment | added | alanf | When a photon arrives at a detector it would be absorbed by the detector as part of the detection process. Destructive interference just means that comparatively few photons would arrive at a particular detector. The photons that do arrive will not be treated any differently than the photons at places where the light constructively interferes. | |
| Aug 19, 2014 at 9:02 | history | edited | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 68 characters in body
|
| Aug 19, 2014 at 7:42 | comment | added | benrg | @Lefty: The phrase "spooky action at a distance" is actually Einstein's. He was referring to entanglement nonlocality, which is not relevant to this question (since it requires at least two particles, and in the double slit experiment there is only one at a time). | |
| Aug 18, 2014 at 15:38 | comment | added | Lefty | Sorry, I’ve just spotted something in your answer that might answer the question and I missed before. You mention light that “would formerly have been absorbed by the screen”. Does this mean that when destructive interference takes place, the energy is lost as heat at the screen? | |
| Aug 18, 2014 at 13:21 | comment | added | Lefty | Thanks for the lengthy answer. Here are a couple of “observations” of my own: 1) I’m not talking about a new SLIT but a hole in the SCREEN allowing the out-of-phase waves to pass beyond the screen where (in some way I can’t quite envisage yet) they’re brought back into phase to reinforce. 2) The term “spooky action at a distance” is not my invention but John Gribbin in his 2 “Schrödinger’s Cat” popular accounts. If memory serves, he mainly uses the term in reference to entanglement. Being someone who struggles with the concepts of QM I quite like it. | |
| Aug 18, 2014 at 11:14 | history | answered | alanf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |