Double-Slit Diffraction Re-visited

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Double-Slit Diffraction Re-visited

Postby Pivot on July 12th, 2018, 12:36 am 

Double-slit diffraction is a corner stone of quantum mechanics. It illustrates key features of quantum mechanics: interference and the particle-wave duality of matter

There are many U-tube videos and descriptions in printed and electronic literature showing the interference-styled patterns from double slit experiments that are used to assert interference and the particle-wave duality of particle-wave of light, electrons and even atoms.

The similarity between the appearance of interference patterns and those created from intersecting wavefronts is interpreted as evidence to wave-like characteristics of particles in support for the particle-wave duality concept. The pattern similarity was originally put forward as evidence of the wave nature of light, and later for electrons and atomic particle streams. However such similarity represents pretty thin evidence, and other possibilities that might explain the phenomena need to be thoroughly examined, tested and eliminated before the particle-wave duality explanation can be considered to be the only possible explanation thus validating the particle-wave duality concept.

One of the best documented single and 2-slit experiments is the paper titled ‘Controlled double-slit electron diffraction’, by Roger Bach, Damian Pope, Sy-Hwang Liou and Herman Batelaan (New Journal of Physics Volume 15, March 2013; downloadable at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 5/3/033018). The paper provides an excellent historical overview of the most significant experimental evidence on the subject since Richard Feynman’s thought experiment concept and is one of the few single/double slit experiments that provide full details (although the backstop distance is missing) of the setup for electron streams and for single electron-by-electron accumulation together with good presentation of the results.

An alternative explanation for the 2-slit interference patterns for electrons involves the electromagnetic edge effect. Assuming the orbital model for the structure of atoms, the positive charges of the nuclei of edge-boundary atoms (a 2nm layer of Gold in the referenced article) deflect the negatively charged electrons as shown in figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1 represents the single-slit setup (P1 or P2 in the referenced paper) showing how low strength electromagnetic fields around the inner edges of the slit can deflect those electrons travelling close to the side of the slits. Those electrons closest to the slit edge, and thus the inner corner, are deflected most and those further away less, with sweet-point deflection groupings (not dissimilar to the quantum-like orbitals around a nucleus in the orbital model of atomic structure based upon speed, charge and spin) overlapping slightly. The insert of figure 1 shows more the proportion of the electron beam corner deflection zone which has been scale-distorted for clarity in the main diagram.

The result for the single-slit is a convex lens shaped concentration made up of the overlapping symmetrical central strip and skewed distributed deflection bands, as represented by the dashed green composite plot and experimentally determined concentrated distribution shown rightmost.

Figure 2 represents the 2-slit setup (P12 in the referenced paper). It shows how the skewed electron distributions from the two slits overlap and re-inforce each other to produce zones of higher intensity that emphasise the lower intensity gaps in between, creating the interference-like patterns associated with 2-slit experiments. The modal sweet-point paths of deflected and unaffected electrons are shown as the blue (upper slit) and maroon (lower) lines, and the distribution in each deflection zone is shown for each. As for figure 1, the dashed green plot shows the combined frequencies which correspond pretty well to the experimentally determined P12 frequency distribution (rightmost in figure 2).

Thus the experimental results for electrons, and similarly for atoms streams, can be explained by electromagnetic deflection without having to rely upon any assumed wave-like characteristics of the particles.

In the ‘Double Slit Experiment Explained!’ video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ Jim Al-Khalili claims that when the deflected particles (here atoms) are counted, the deflections do not take place, suggesting that the act of counting or observing the particles magically stops the deflection process. Could it just be that the particles are counted by detecting them as they pass through a magnetic field, and that magnetic field subsumes and cancels out the low strength electromagnetic fields around the inner edges of the slits, thus eliminating the cause of the deflection? The lack of detail regarding the ‘atom counting’ device is a critical omission.

The crisp ‘Professor Dave Explains’ series of u-tube presentations provide an insightful explanation of the particle-wave duality concept for electrons, with energy waves of various frequencies forming around a central energy core. However he fails to explain how these energy waves cause interference patterns for the single and 2-slit experiments. 

For light the alternative deflection mechanism is different to that for electrons as light is not significantly deflected by electromagnetic fields: instead they just cause a rotation of polarisation angle (the Faraday Effect) within light. It can be argued that the 2-slit interference patterns produced by spatially coherent monochrome light results from a combination of surface (slit side) reflection and polarisation and edge differential refraction (birefringence).

The 2-slit experiments should not be considered to represent strong experimental evidence of the wavelike nature of photons (i.e. the full electromagnetic radiation spectrum including visible light), electrons and atoms without first eliminating other alternative feasible explanations for the observed interference patterns. To do so means that the wave explanation remains disputable, and is at risk of being embarrassingly proven incorrect further down the track.
Attachments
2 slit Figure 2.JPG
figure 2
2 slit Figure 1.JPG
figure 1
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Wave Theory Still Holds Water

Postby Faradave on July 12th, 2018, 12:45 pm 

Water waves and sound waves follow wave theory as they pass through slits in a barrier, yet they can ultimately be resolved into the motions of the particles of their respective mediums. That does not invalidate the wave description.

Particle beams obey wave theory with respect to wavelength, slit width slit separation (if more than one and distances from source to barrier and on to screen. They hold precisely for a variety of interferometers, where slits are not involved at all and respond accordingly when beams are rotated specific amounts.

That there is agreement between wave and particle constructs (though each excludes the other for a given measurement) is the basis of wave-particle duality. Depending largely on scale, wave theory can be seen emerging from particle theory or vice versa.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Double-Slit Diffraction Re-visited

Postby Pivot on July 26th, 2018, 8:34 am 

Hi Faradave

My line of reasoning was not an attempt to debunk wave theory and its importance for EMR, sound, hull design, aerodynamics etc. The single and double slit light experiments for light are well documented and reasonably easy to duplicate (not that I have done so). The interference patterns are well researched and few would dispute the wave interference explanations as the prime cause – and I am not presently one of those few.

The apparatus and setup for non-photonic particle (mainly electrons and some for atoms) slit experiments are more elaborate and fiddly, and are much less tested or duplicated. Most articles that I have read lack detail of the setup and/or in detail of the results. The article that I referenced was one of the better ones that I have come across, and I do not doubt the integrity of the authors. However, the authors’ abstract statement ‘Double-slit diffraction is a corner stone of quantum mechanics. It illustrates key features of quantum mechanics: interference and the particle-wave duality of matter’ does not seem overly objective, with further similar comments within the body of the paper.

The aim of my topic item was to point out that the vertical patterning for single electron traversals was similar but significantly different to that produced for 2 slit light experiments, and could well be produced by other phenomena (e.g. low strength electromagnetic fields around the inner edges of the slit can deflect those electrons). Certainly all possible explanations should be eliminated and before the effect can be attributed to and thus be considered to validate the particle-wave duality concept.

Then I went on to comment that there are other factors other than wave interference that need to be factored in the slit experiments for light that might contribute to the interference patterns and extenuate the wave interference effect. At least that is what I thought I was saying.
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 14 Apr 2016


Re: Coincidence?

Postby Faradave on July 26th, 2018, 10:43 am 

You seem to agree that photonic wave interference is legitimate. Those waves derive from Planck's E = h/λ for light quanta (λ is wavelength). But non-photonic wavelength also derives from Planck's constant (λ = h/p). In both cases, λ relates to the slit widths and separations the same way.

This is not to mention that matter waves (in 3D) must be resonant to establish stable orbitals about nuclei, which give rise to discrete photons in the first place. The change in matter wavelength on electron orbital transition thus, directly relates to the wavelength of light emitted or absorbed in relation to that transition.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Double-Slit Diffraction Re-visited

Postby Pivot on August 27th, 2018, 10:06 am 

Hi Faraday

Apologies for the delayed response.


Regarding
photonic wave interference
I feel more comfortable with the term 'photonic interference' because I don't believe that waves are a necessary pre-requisite to destructive and constructive interference of light and electrons, as explained in my updated article on Electromagnetic Radiation located at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BZpjyzYe3E5lwdyl7JFHFJtqqZdMZfbt. This article is much more complete than the contents of this original posting. You might also be interested in the article about electricity at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1iySOypWwsAeoXey2R9fVmNDC_TpTBaAf that provides background info about suggested photon structure referred to in the EMR article.

With respect to
not to mention that matter waves (in 3D) must be resonant to establish stable orbitals about nuclei
Louis de Broglie's hypothesis is that atomic particles would exhibit a duality similar to that of light's claimed wave/particle duality (as explained by Einstein in 1905). To claim that that if the duality equations already known for light were similar those developed for an atomic particle, then de Broglie's hypothesis would hold (i.e. be correct) is an argument based on very flimsy ground. It is tantamount to saying that if one set of equations can be equated to another set, then both are right - or they could both be wrong.

I do not doubt the wave-based constructive and destructive interference takes place; I simply claim that a similar phenomenon for photons can be explained without the need to assume a wave-like photon structure. Also, I have doubts about orbitals, let alone resonant orbitals around nuclei.

Regards
Pivot
Pivot
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 14 Apr 2016



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests