Timeline for References for experimental results of the double-slit experiment
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2019 at 13:07 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Nov 27, 2014 at 14:26 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edit after comments
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 14:06 | comment | added | bright magus | @annav: There are no "plane waves impinging on the two slits, quantum mechanically". The solutions do not travel through the two slits. They are probabilities, and not physical objects to be found anywhere. If the problem is in the wording, then I suggest you fine-tune it to avoid confusion. If 25 years after Tonamura's experiment there is still a widespread conviction that particle is also a wave, the blame is in continued up-keeping of the appearance that such abstract concepts are physical reality. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 13:57 | comment | added | anna v | @brightmagus the solutions are plane waves, the interpretations is that they represent the probability distribution of the impinging particles . Maybe it is my syntax but I think that is what I ams saying. The solutions, not the electrons. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 13:36 | comment | added | bright magus | @annav: So the sentence I quoted above is misleading. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 13:14 | comment | added | anna v | @brightmagus but that is exactly what I am saying. The plane waves are PROBABILITY waves, each electron follows a plane wave probability solution, one entry. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 13:08 | comment | added | bright magus | @annav: "Again in the double slit experiments the solutions are plane waves impinging on the two slits, quantum mechanical." If you watch the video from the experiment by A. Tanamura, the photos of which you used in your answer, you will see clearly that it has proved that electron is not a "plane wave" but only a particle, as single electron never creates the interference pattern. See also this answer to "Is the wave-particle duality a real duality?", where you will find more on the subject. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 11:32 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added missing link
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 11:25 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 8:55 | comment | added | anna v | See the answers to this question physics.stackexchange.com/questions/437/… . For how the photons build up the classical wave see here motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/… | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 7:59 | comment | added | anna v | @IllegalImmigrant it is a boundary condition. The two slit experiments create conditions of a coherent plane wave, laser light for example, because the solutions are simple. For more complicated experiments yes, fourier transforms simplify the solutions.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_spectroscopy | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 7:57 | comment | added | anna v | It is maxwell's equations in the potential form turned into operators operating on the psi of the photon. This is the general one. One has to solve it for the specific experimental situation. The bounds is a plane wave impinging on two slits. The mathematics is exactly the same as shown in the links above , except for the interpretation as a probability amplitude. cosines and sines do not know whether they are used to model a quantum phenomenon or a classical one. Only the user knows. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:14 | comment | added | Peter | thanks anna v, I understand what the solution looks like, my question is as I understand QM you define a Hamiltonian to describe the problem and maths away. I can not conceive what a Hamiltonian for a photon incident on a double slit would like in order to solve the equation to yield all the results above. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:08 | comment | added | Fraïssé | Can an aperture be considered a physical fourier transform device? | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:01 | history | answered | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |