What is the experimental (*) outcome of a single photon/electron double slit experiment under the constraint that after each detection the detector material is reset to the original state ie, in the limit it is substituted by another detector sheet, or photographic plate.

Of course that the impact positions should be recorded in a computer to construct the accumulated final image.

(*) I will open the question to the theoretical expectations to cover the case of no experiment was found.

edit ADD:
I'm not questioning QM, nor theory, nor opinions.
As a reference the single electron double slit configuration is described at Hitachi Lab and here are more details on the setup and the Hamamatsu Photonics (PIAS) detector

From the reactions on other Q/A sites I suspect that this experiment was never done in the conditions I want.

Pro dubio I'm asking.

The answer to this experiment has the potential to classify as probably true, or false, a sentence like this one found in arxiv2010 Beam-splitters don’t have memory: ... by Radu Ionicioiu

In WT a single event (i.e., a photon entering the interferometer) leaves no trace (memory) in the apparatus. The device behaves in the same way for the first event and for event number 10000

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The same as the other experiments, I would expect--I'm not aware of any indication that the state of the film/detector matters at all. If you were using a CCD or the like and sending a signal only rarely then you basically have this limit, since the CCD returns to its initial state pretty fast. $\endgroup$ – zeldredge May 25 '15 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ The naive definition of "measurement" in quantum mechanics assumes that the measurement apparatus doesn't have a quantum mechanical state, at all. You can augment that with theoretical considerations where all of the universe is divided into system and the rest, including the measurement apparatus. That gives you a notion for relative quantum states, but the results of that theoretical approach are basically identical to ordinary QM if you don't go down the road of Everett, who wasn't willing to allow thermodynamic averages and ended up with the (questionable) multi-worlds interpretation. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 25 '15 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ In science one should make tests even more if one is certain of a specific result. $\endgroup$ – Helder Velez May 25 '15 at 19:30

This particular video at 3'52" displays a TV screen where the image is coming from a TV camera in a two slit experiment. The detector element, a molecule on the camera screen is uniquely hit and gives up a photo electron which amplified gives the signal to the TV screen.

Thus in this sense the detecting surface of the interference is reset by a next molecule, even if a photon happens to hit the same nanometersxnaometers spot.

The explanation that the single particle is spread out in space as explained in the linked video is not correct, imo. I am using the experimental part of it, not the interpretation. In this video, at 4'.28" the probability wave, the basics of quantum mechanics, is explained, which describes and predicts the behavior of the double slit experiment.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ That part of the movie (5'42") appears to be photoshopped (ie computer generated) to keep up with the previous images related to probability. The experiment is not "single photon" or "single electron" as required and the setup not being detailed I suspect it to be like the one I use as see reference(Hamamatsu) Fig. I'm comfortable with the wavy nature of matter/light and THE MEANING OF WAVE MECHANICS by Erwin Schrödinger, found here $\endgroup$ – Helder Velez May 28 '15 at 7:11
  • $\begingroup$ link of first video was missing, corrected it.Yes, the second one is a demonstration not an experiment. to first is an experiment. sorry for the mixup $\endgroup$ – anna v May 28 '15 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Do you know what are the hardware/software features following the detector? I wanted to nullify the chances of interference happen either in the detector or in TV camera. $\endgroup$ – Helder Velez May 31 '15 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ the camera uses a charge coupled devise en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device, photoelectric effect " conversion of incoming photons into electron charges at the semiconductor-oxide interface" and the tv screen is a cathode ray tube en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube . We would not be getting images on our TVs if there were such interferences as you imagine. $\endgroup$ – anna v May 31 '15 at 15:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.