1
$\begingroup$

In the double-slit-experiment, one particle at a time (for example, the double-slit-experiment performed by Dr. Tonomura showing the build-up of an interference pattern of single electrons) can be observed in a detector or photographic plate by attenuating the source. At such a low rate of detection, I read that background radiation becomes a significant proportion of the particles detected. What I don’t read, is the effect virtual particles have on this experiment. Should they be factored into the experiment? If so, or if not, why?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Background radiation and virtual particles are rather different things - you may want to clarify your point about these (my guess is that virtual particles are not relevant here). $\endgroup$ – Roger Vadim Jul 25 '20 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Vadim Thank you for pointing this out. When I read about the experimental setup and interpretation of results, background 'noise', or more precisely, background radiation, is discussed and accounted for as it is present in the detectors / photographic plates in significant quantities in this kind of experiment. Virtual particles are different phenomenon. However, they are present in this kind of experiment (all experiments, really!). Yet they are not discussed in the papers. Like you, I assume they are not relevant but I wanted to ask and check my assumption. $\endgroup$ – Qubit Jul 27 '20 at 1:39
0
$\begingroup$

Two-slit experiment is a thought experiment to demonstrate the wave nature of electrons in quantum mechanics. There exist many implementations of this experiment, which necessarily differ from the simple analysis given in the textbooks and compounded by many external influences, than need to be factored in.

E.g., observing electron wave interference in nanoscale Aharonov-Bohm rings is complicated by phase rigidity due to multiple scattering events. This necessitates opening the interferometer in order to allow scattered particles to escape, which necessarily lowers the visibility of the interference picture. In a way, this is just the opposite of the problem that you have in mind.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. The experiment you reference is an interesting read and as far as I can tell, another ingenious way to add weight to Bohr's Complementarity. The discussion includes 'quantum shot noise' but does not make reference to virtual particles (VPs). You chose a good example. Had you chosen a double-slit exp. with photons and should VPs also be limited to photons, then we can be sure of no interaction as the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply. But seeing as fermions exhibit interference in the D-slit and VPs include fermions, then my question remains valid? $\endgroup$ – Qubit Jul 27 '20 at 6:41
  • $\begingroup$ @user1575415 I am not sure what you mean by virtual particles - for me those are the intermediate states in the perturbative expansion, i.e., they exist in the calculations, but not in real life. In the Heiblum's experiment one could have virtual electrons. $\endgroup$ – Roger Vadim Jul 27 '20 at 7:23
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I should have been more specific: I did have in mind the perturbation of the quantum vacuum. But you made me think. Usually I would defer to a Feynman diagram for two real particles. However, perturbation should also apply to a single particle in the experiment we discussed, for example, the effective charge of the electron is different from the naked charge because of VPs. Are VPs real and not just a fudge factor for the calculations? Maybe vacuum birefringence could be observed? Otherwise, yes, they are virtual in QFT it would seem. $\endgroup$ – Qubit Jul 28 '20 at 4:07

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.