Re: Double Slit Puzzle Explained (?)

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:cMYYj.3488$j41.229@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:69i0mtF330e9eU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:vjGYj.2159$we7.1305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill strides manfully up the scaffold steps. He grabs the rope, slides it over his head, positions his feet squarely over the trapdoor, grabs the handle and pulls hard...
**************************************************



The Puzzle



The following is from Wikipedia: "In the double-slit experiment, light is shone at a solid thin plate that has two slits cut into it. A photographic plate or some other detection screen is set up to record what comes through those slits. One or the other slit may be open, or both may be open.



Normally, when only one slit is open, the pattern on the plate is a diffraction pattern, a fairly narrow central band with dimmer bands parallel to it on each side. When both slits are open, the pattern displayed becomes very much more detailed and at least four times as wide."



Wikipedia continues with:



"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same *** of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself - even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

The clear implication of the above is that light, electrons, atoms and some molecules are composed of waves, not particles. This has led many researchers moving in many different directions, with results ranging from the ridiculous to the divine. But no solid answers seem to have appeared.

IMHO, it is a good assumption that there are real waves involved with quantum objects.

OK but it seems that the double slit experiment is valid for light, photons (whatever THEY are!) electrons, atoms and some molecules.

Your contention holds for light, photons and (maybe) electrons. Are you now maintaining that atoms are quantum objects? What about molecules? At what point does an object cease (or start) to be "quantum?"

Sure, atoms are quantum objects as well as simple molecules. There is really not a clear cut "point" at which an object is either quantum or classical. It mostly depends on how they are being observed. But all classical objects are composed of quantum objects, of course. ;-)

Not to be confused with the "probability" waves of QM math. However, I wouldn't rule out a particulate nature to quantum objects either since it is needed for there to be real waves.



The Answer


The answer to this puzzle is, I believe, both straightforward and non-quantum. In this note, I will deal solely with electrons. I believe that the insights we may gain will be applicable to all aspects of this little puzzle.



Since the mechanism for recording these "baffling" events is photographic plates, and since the plates are sensitive to radiation, let's look at where that radiation might come from.



The fundamental source for most, if not all radiation is the acceleration of charges. And acceleration can take many forms. But only one acceleration mechanism seems applicable to this particular problem. That mechanism is called "Transition Radiation."



Quoting from Zolatarev and McDonald in "Classical Radiation Processes in the Weizsacker-Williams Approximation," we read the following brief description: "As a charged particle crosses, for example, a vacuum/metal boundary, its interaction with charges in the material results in their acceleration and hence radiation, commonly called transition radiation."



It should be noted that this radiation is not coherent. Instead, it will be wideband with spectra determined by the geometry of the slit, the path of the electron(s) WRT the slit and the energy contained therein. The radiation is in the Xray range.



The above explanation of Transition Radiation is what is going on at each of the slits of a double slit experiment. The electron(s) interact with the material at the boundary of the slit, causing radiation to appear. It is this radiation that is captured on the photographic plate.

I don't think so. I believe the way an electron experiment is done is that it is actually an electron hitting the detection "plate" that is recorded. And not radiation.

OK On what basis is this "belief" founded? Is there some sort of a filter in front of the plate that filters out, say, Xrays? Or is the plate only sensitive to electron impacts?

But wait... if an electron impacts, won't it just make a foggy little spot?

Oh, I forgot. An electron is also a wave. So it will morph -- on impact -- into a wave that just happens to have the exact pattern of peaks and valleys as would have formed if another electron had simultaneously gone through the other slit.

I think you need to do more research on how the electron experiments are done.

Yeah. That's a LOT more sensible than my idea.

[snip radiation hypothesis]

Summary


This short note neither proves nor disproves the wave/particle duality of the electron. It is entirely possible that an electron may be a particle. Or it may be some form of wave function.

There is not much doubt in my mind that an electron has both particle and wave properties. Why not just accept that it is both?

I guess that I don't want to blindly accept something that does not seem to SOLVE one of the biggest unsolved puzzles (that I can think of) in EM today. That puzzle is: How can a single photon/electron/atom/molecule "know" about the presence or absence of the second slit?

Hint: Accepting that electrons have both properties does NOT answer the above question. (Unless, along with the properties of a wave and a particle, an electron ALSO has sentience.)

If an electron has real wave properties it definitely explains the phenomenon. No "sentience" is needed.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Neutrinos and relativistic effects are the clue.

But it DOES demonstrate, using well-established principles, that there is a reasonable explanation for the double slit puzzle. And that explanation has nothing to do with statistics nor with quantum mechanics.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

Because...?

Because the detectors are detecting electrons and not radiation.

Thanks for the reply, Fred.

Your most welcome.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

.