11

I just recently watched a video where they were explaining the double slit experiment.

I understand that the interference pattern would be observed if you send photons or electrons one after the other. The conclusion that the author seems to make is that it is as though the particle/packet of energy travels through both the slits after somehow splitting into two.

Has anyone done an experiment where they send just one particle? (And end the experiment) Do you observe two points on the screen in that case or just one?

Manishearth
  • 18,936
mehfoos
  • 1,716
  • The conservation of energy still counts, so it would still show up at only one position. Only the probability of the 'particle' will be determined by the double-slit-interference-pattern. – fibonatic Jul 12 '13 at 12:20
  • BTW, The "one at a time" condition is not hard to achieve. You say "Well, the optical path is about 3 meters long so if we turn the source down until the rate is $10^{5},\mathrm{Bq}$ then the average occupancy of the device is $10^{-3}$." Or if that doesn't make you happy turn the rate down to 10,000 per second to get a mean occupancy of one in ten thousand and so on. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jul 12 '13 at 12:47
  • The same Dr Quantum video in other Phys.SE posts: http://physics.stackexchange.com/search?q=url%3A%22DfPeprQ7oGc%22 – Qmechanic Jul 12 '13 at 13:29

2 Answers2

14

Has anyone done an experiment where they send just one particle? (And end the experiment) Do you observe two points on the screen in that case or just one?

You don't observe two points - you get a probability. This is what the video was trying to indicate by showing dots on the screen. Those dots are the reason for postulating the role of probabilities in quantum mechanics.

The idea is that you can't predict where a single electron will hit the screen, the only thing you know is that some places are more probable than others. The probability is dictated by the probability density function which ostensibly can come from the quantum mechanical wave equation of the electron.

The probability distribution function for a single particle is the same function (aside from units/magnitude) as the intensity you see for a large number of particles. After all, that is always what we see when we observe the interference pattern. You just get enough particles that you can't distinguish single hits anymore.

Alan Rominger
  • 21,047
  • Thanks. I did not have enough rep to upvote this answer or fibonatic's comment, but yes, very useful. I was put off a bit by the idea of the particle splitting. I will post a separate question about that. – mehfoos Jul 12 '13 at 12:54
  • @user1218748 I would suggest doing just that. If a new curiosity stems off of a prior question then it makes sense to ask a new question. The wording of the video (or any double-slit intro) has lots of references to higher physics. For instance, saying that the electron travels every possible path references path integrals. I never understood those very well myself. – Alan Rominger Jul 12 '13 at 13:00
9

Yes, several people have done the experiment, and the photons/electrons are not split, you can get one hit at a time. Here is a second video .

The wikipedia two slit article has a build up of the electron interference pattern one at a time.

electrondoubleslit

It is a probability pattern that shows the interference. The electrons and photons either go through one of the slits or the other, whole. Nothing mysterious is happening.

There have been experiments recently where one can detect which the slit the particle went through and still the interference pattern appears.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • 1
    Thanks for the images, but isn't an experiment where one can detect the slit the particle went through and observe the interference pattern a violation of complementary principle?! I have heard of the controversial Afshar experiment, but I was under the impression that experiments such as Wheeler's delayed choice experiment pretty much conclusively proved that observing the particle can influence the experiment. (Not merely because the observation leads to a causal effect) – mehfoos Jul 12 '13 at 14:23
  • Well, observing a particle changes the boundary conditions and a different solution and wave function would be necessary than the one of the undisturbed two slits. In the experiments linked in the wiki article they presume that the interference to the original is minimal. – anna v Jul 12 '13 at 16:48
  • This too is the better answer. Rephrasing: yes, the experiment has been done with a single particle, without observing which slit it went through. The result was always a single particle, never a split into two particles. The specific location of the single particle on the screen could not be predicted -- only the probability for each segment of the screen could be predicted. A single particle cannot prove the probability distribution -- it could hit anywhere. But a large number of particles, sent sequentially with gaps of time between them, conclusively prove the probability distribution. – randomstring Jul 15 '13 at 22:20
  • 2
    What experiments were recently made in which you know which way the particle went but you still get the inteference? – alex Nov 20 '13 at 19:00
  • 1
    @alex there is a link above to the wiki article, but the reference is behind a paywall. If you have access to a library you could see it. – anna v Nov 20 '13 at 19:35
  • 2
    If I send one particle now,another particle 6 months later and so on ,will I get interference pattern after few years? – Paul Mar 25 '15 at 02:43
  • Can you please provide a link where Schrodinger's equation has been solved for double slit boundary conditions? – Paul Mar 25 '15 at 03:03
  • Time is irrelevant, if the boundary conditions are unchanged the interference will appear. http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703126.pdf , http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/60/10/10.1119/1.17009 . One needs to be subscribed for the latter, or go to a library – anna v Mar 25 '15 at 04:22
  • @annav "The electrons and photons either go through one of the slits or the other, whole." Are you saying that each particle only goes through one slit? If that's what you're saying, then what's the evidence for that statement? The fact that we get an interference pattern (after enough particles have passed through, one at a time) is normally regarded as clear evidence that each individual, indivisible particle went through both slits. ("Particle" here means something that can be counted, not something with a well-defined location.) – Chiral Anomaly Apr 12 '20 at 19:20
  • @annav In a comment earlier in this thread, alex asked, "What experiments were recently made in which you know which way the particle went but you still get the inteference?" Can you specify which of the articles cited in the linked wiki page addresses that question? – Chiral Anomaly Apr 12 '20 at 19:22
  • @anna v Can you specify the reference? There are mutiple references in the wikipedia article. – my2cts Apr 12 '20 at 20:09
  • @my2cts it is industrial research. this link needs login :http://portal.discoverthecosmos.eu/en/node/93624 – anna v Apr 13 '20 at 05:00
  • @ChiralAnomaly https://phys.org/news/2011-01-which-way-detector-mystery-double-slit.html – anna v Apr 13 '20 at 05:01
  • @my2cts if you meant for the which way reference, I corrected it, it was a mistaken one – anna v Apr 13 '20 at 09:19
  • 1
    Thanks #annav ! QM implies that which way information directly impacts the interference pattern. The article is fully consistent with this. Unfortunately the authors talk about wave function collapse, which is an unphysical concept . – my2cts Apr 13 '20 at 10:55