The exact title is "Has a double slit experiment ever been done using a track chamber or even contemplated?".

I was totally unfamiliar with the concept of the bubble chamber, so I did some amateur research. It seems as though bubble chambers are considered old fashioned. I was wondering whether or not we could use a different device to get around technical limitations imposed from using bubble chambers.

In fact, if it can be theoretically assumed that such a chamber could be built for the purposes of performing the double slit experiment, how would results align with traditional experiment? This is the heart of my question.

Here's my hypothesis: On an individual level, it'd seem that the quantum nature of the experiment would be torn apart. However, if the experiment is repeated for many different particles, I'd expect convergence, in distribution that is, to the typical model. In fact, I'd expect to see particle paths much like those presented in Bohm Theory, go to the double slit section, there's a picture of what I'm talking about. These "Bohm" paths converge to the typical double-slit distribution, so I'd expect the same in the experiment.

What I'd like to know is this. Can this theoretical chamber be set up such that the actual particles inside the chamber don't interfere with the particles path in such a way as to ruin the experiment? What kind of limit on the minimum interference level is allowed? Would we ever get convergence to the scenario envisioned by Bohm Theory?

By the way, I have horrible physical intuition, so you're invited to use math up through elementary QFT, but only if things get relativistic, I'm not that good with it. Just consider posting a reference if I deem something obscure ;)

  • $\begingroup$ Notice that I discuss liquid noble gas TPC's in my answer to the original. That's the up to data technological equivalent. Also, bubble chambers have made a partial comeback for use in direct dark-matter detection in the last few years. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 21 '15 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ @dmckee duly noted. However for the purpose of the question, I'm more or less interested in just having the technology already be available, unless it can be shown that doing so violates fancy pants principle x of course. That dark matter stuff though, didn't know that :) $\endgroup$ – Zach466920 Aug 21 '15 at 2:06

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.