Are double slit detectors all electron based?

[Varon]

Even if you send a buckyball molecule in the emitter, does the detector always give you output in terms of electrons? Isn't there a way to actually check the buckyball located in the detector?

Because in normal double slit with electrons. One can argue that the emitter send an electron field that is splitted by the slits into waves, and the waves reach the detector that trigger just one of the existing electrons at the detectors due to conservation of energy. Why not?

Can you suggest ways to eliminate this possibilility by making use of other methods to detect the electron emitted (to distinguish it from the thousands of existing electrons at the detector)?

 

[DrChinese]

Zeilinger et al, 2002:

http://hexagon.physics.wisc.edu/teaching/2010s%20ph531%20quantum%20mechanics/interesting%20papers/zeilinger%20large%20molecule%20interference%20ajp%202003.pdf

 

[Varon]

Zeilinger et al, 2002:

http://hexagon.physics.wisc.edu/teaching/2010s%20ph531%20quantum%20mechanics/interesting%20papers/zeilinger%20large%20molecule%20interference%20ajp%202003.pdf

According to Richard Feynman, the double-slit experiment contains the only mystery of quantum mechanics. After we have unveiled the mystery, we will be able to understand quantum mechanics.

I want to challenge someone in the Independent Research section and I need to know some facts about the detection events.

It goes like this.

Initially the emitter emits one electron which is really an electron quantum field which we can say is like a wave. When it reaches the slits, the electron quantum field splits in two. But how come the detector only detects one electron. The secret is that the detector contains many electrons as ingredients in the detection. So what happens is the quantum field or wave simultaneously inpinge on all area of the detector at once.. and one electron in the detector is triggered! This made us assume that this one electron triggered is the same one as the initial electron sends off. But it is not! Herein lies the solution to the 80 year old mystery of the double slit experiment! So claimed Arnold Neumaier. For details. See this thread in Independent Research.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492

Now some basic questions.

Is it true that all detectors have electrons as their ingredients in the detection event? We know photosensor has electron and photoelectric effect has to do with the electrons in the detector. So the secret of the double slit is the emitter didn't send a solid particle with a classical trajectory to either slit. But pure quantum wave that splits after reaching the slits and then trigger one of the electrons in the detector. But why only one detector is triggered.

Neumaier explained:

The electron is always a quantum field. The quantum field can be regarded to describe a particle if and only if the field has a nonzero expectation only in a region small compared to the whole system considered. Thus we may say that the field is a particle as long as this condition is satisfied. Because of the dispersion of the field caused by the slits, this condition stops to be satisfied almost immediately after the field (with support large enough to cover both slits) passed the double slit. Thus it is no longer justified to talk about a particle.

The situation is similar as with a sphere of glass. If you throw it, you may regard it as a particle. But if it hits an obstacle and fragmentizes, it is no longer localized enogh to deserve the name of a particle.

The field passes the doulbe slit in a fashion similar as a water wave would do, except with quantum corrections."

I asked: "After it pass thru the slits, it became smeared. Now how does the smeared field converge back into a single electron detected at the screen?"

Neumaier answered:

It doesn't. It remains smeared. But one of the electrons in the detector fires and
(after magnification) gives rise to a measurable current.. This will happen at exactly one place. Thus it _seems_ that the electron has arrived there, while in fact it has arrived everywhere within its extent.

If a water wave reaches a dam with a hole in it, the water will come out solely through this hole although the wave reached the dam everywhere. A detector is (in a vague way) similar to such a dam with a large number of holes, of which only one per electron can respond because of conservation of energy.

Questions:
Can anyone think of detectors that don't use electrons? Or think of a unique setup that can refute the above theory? Double slit experiment is very basic and this is why I post it here.

This message is to increase my knowledge about details of detection events in the double slit experiments.

 

[SpectraCat]

According to Richard Feynman, the double-slit experiment contains the only mystery of quantum mechanics. After we have unveiled the mystery, we will be able to understand quantum mechanics.

I want to challenge someone in the Independent Research section and I need to know some facts about the detection events.

It goes like this.

Initially the emitter emits one electron which is really an electron quantum field which we can say is like a wave. When it reaches the slits, the electron quantum field splits in two. But how come the detector only detects one electron. The secret is that the detector contains many electrons as ingredients in the detection. So what happens is the quantum field or wave simultaneously inpinge on all area of the detector at once.. and one electron in the detector is triggered! This made us assume that this one electron triggered is the same one as the initial electron sends off. But it is not! Herein lies the solution to the 80 year old mystery of the double slit experiment! So claimed Arnold Neumaier. For details. See this thread in Independent Research.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492

Now some basic questions.

Is it true that all detectors have electrons as their ingredients in the detection event? We know photosensor has electron and photoelectric effect has to do with the electrons in the detector. So the secret of the double slit is the emitter didn't send a solid particle with a classical trajectory to either slit. But pure quantum wave that splits after reaching the slits and then trigger one of the electrons in the detector. But why only one detector is triggered.

Neumaier explained:



I asked: "After it pass thru the slits, it became smeared. Now how does the smeared field converge back into a single electron detected at the screen?"

Neumaier answered:



Questions:
Can anyone think of detectors that don't use electrons? Or think of a unique setup that can refute the above theory? Double slit experiment is very basic and this is why I post it here.

This message is to increase my knowledge about details of detection events in the double slit experiments.

The original Stern Gerlach experiments used glass plates on which the silver atoms were deposited. Presumably you could use the same method for the double slit experiment to visualize the results of a large number of experiments, however, you would not be able to detect single events in this manner. In principle, you could perhaps build an array of AFM cantilevers that would be able to register single atom impacts in real time. That is about the only way I can think of at the current time for getting a position-sensitive detection method for non-charged particles that is not based on a direct electronic interaction. All of the other position sensitive methods I know of for registering single molecules or atoms are based on detection of charges (ionization followed by charge transfer and amplification). Of course, the AFM array will also convert the data into electronic form eventually, but the initial deflection of the cantilever will be an inertial interaction, not an charge-transfer based one.

 

[Varon]

If what came out after the double slits are pure quantum wave.. i can't understand why only one existing electron in the detectors can be triggered (after quantum wave hit it) amongst the millions due to said conservation of energy. Can anyone show an example of other situation where only one something is triggered due to alleged conservation of energy?

 

[SpectraCat]

From what I can see, the example you gave above from Neumeier is only valid for electrons (and possibly photons). Since the double-slit experiment can also be carried out with much more massive particles, that would seem to make that interpretation limited at best, and potentially incorrect. How does he explain double-slit interference patterns observed for large molecules? Does he believe that these molecules also impact the detector "everywhere", but only end up triggering one detection point due to energy conservation?

 

[Varon]

From what I can see, the example you gave above from Neumeier is only valid for electrons (and possibly photons). Since the double-slit experiment can also be carried out with much more massive particles, that would seem to make that interpretation limited at best, and potentially incorrect. How does he explain double-slit interference patterns observed for large molecules? Does he believe that these molecules also impact the detector "everywhere", but only end up triggering one detection point due to energy conservation?

I think yes. But you said detectors use electrons for the detection event... so we don't know if the buckyball reach one region of the detector or whether the buckyball wave just trigger one electron out of millions of the detector. But what happens to the original buckyball? Neumaier said his explanation would become part of textbook in the future and I'd like to scrutinize and I need knowledge of the detector event. I'd like to understand it so if it's true I can maybe contribute an article about it in Scientific American with the cover "Double Slit Mystery Finally Solved".

 

[DrChinese]

Neumaier said his explanation would become part of textbook in the future and I'd like to scrutinize and I need knowledge of the detector event. I'd like to understand it so if it's true I can maybe contribute an article about it in Scientific American with the cover "Double Slit Mystery Finally Solved".

I wouldn't take that too literally. There are plenty of scientists who don't think there is a mystery to be solved per se. As QM is considered "complete" as is. I read about 1 "quantum mystery solved" article every month or 2, and none have gone on to any significant acceptance. Or really any acceptance.

 

[San K]

According to Richard Feynman, the double-slit experiment contains the only mystery of quantum mechanics. After we have unveiled the mystery, we will be able to understand quantum mechanics.

I want to challenge someone in the Independent Research section and I need to know some facts about the detection events.

It goes like this.

Initially the emitter emits one electron which is really an electron quantum field which we can say is like a wave. When it reaches the slits, the electron quantum field splits in two. But how come the detector only detects one electron. The secret is that the detector contains many electrons as ingredients in the detection. So what happens is the quantum field or wave simultaneously inpinge on all area of the detector at once.. and one electron in the detector is triggered! This made us assume that this one electron triggered is the same one as the initial electron sends off. But it is not! Herein lies the solution to the 80 year old mystery of the double slit experiment! So claimed Arnold Neumaier. For details. See this thread in Independent Research.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492

Now some basic questions.

Is it true that all detectors have electrons as their ingredients in the detection event? We know photosensor has electron and photoelectric effect has to do with the electrons in the detector. So the secret of the double slit is the emitter didn't send a solid particle with a classical trajectory to either slit. But pure quantum wave that splits after reaching the slits and then trigger one of the electrons in the detector. But why only one detector is triggered.

Neumaier explained:



I asked: "After it pass thru the slits, it became smeared. Now how does the smeared field converge back into a single electron detected at the screen?"

Neumaier answered:



Questions:
Can anyone think of detectors that don't use electrons? Or think of a unique setup that can refute the above theory? Double slit experiment is very basic and this is why I post it here.

This message is to increase my knowledge about details of detection events in the double slit experiments.

The below paragraph (from the link that Dr Chinese posted) tends to support that idea that "bucky balls" actually went (say one-by-one) through the slits, and not just waves. The paragraph discusses reduction in width (calling it effective width) due to interaction between the molecule and the slits...known as the van der Waal's interaction.



In principle, the diffraction patterns can be understood
quantitatively within the Fraunhofer approximation of Kirchhoff’s
diffraction theory as it can be found in any optics
textbook.38 However, Fraunhofer’s diffraction theory in the
context of optics misses an important point that becomes
evident in our experiments with matter waves and material
gratings: the attractive interaction between molecule and
wall results in an additional phase of the molecular wave
function after the passage of the molecule through the slits.39
Although the details of the calculations are somewhat
involved,40 it suffices here to say that the qualitative effect of
this attractive force can be understood as a narrowing of the
real slit width toward an effective slit width. For our fullerene
molecules the reduction can be as big as 20 nm for the unselected
molecular beam and almost 30 nm for the velocity
selected beam. The stronger effect on slower molecules can
be understood by the longer and therefore more influential
interaction between the molecules and the wall. However, a
complete description would need to take into account the
correct shape of the complex ~imaginary and real! transmission
function, which implies the position-dependent modulation
of both the molecular amplitude and phase.

 

[SpectraCat]

The below paragraph (from the link that Dr Chinese posted) tends to support that idea that "bucky balls" actually went (say one-by-one) through the slits, and not just waves. The paragraph discusses reduction in width (calling it effective width) due to interaction between the molecule and the slits...known as the van der Waal's interaction.

No, I don't see where you are getting that. The passage references interactions between the material around the slits (or grating) and the wavefunction of the molecules passing through. It further describes how such interactions modify the phase of the wavefunction.

The fact that the molecules are going through "1 by 1" is sort of "by definition" for a double slit experiment, which investigates interference of the wavefunction of a single particle as it passes through 2 (or more) slits. That is what we are discussing in this thread anyway.

 

[Varon]

I asked: "But in one-electron (or photon or buckyball) at a time double slit experiment, how does the wave after the slits select only one electron among the 10^20 in the detector?"

Neumaier answers: "The wave selects nothing. It arrives at the various places of detector with different intensities, and these intensities stimulate all the electrons. But because of conservation of energy, only one can fire since the first one that fires uses up all the energy available for ionization (resp. jumping to the conduction band), and none is left for the others."

My God. This is possible. Isn't it? Is he on the way to Stockholm? :)

What happens in the double slit is this (according to him):

"In an interference experiment, neither the electron nor the buckyball is a particle, since the latter is a semiclassical concept without meaning in case of interference. Since there is no particle, there is no need to explain where the particle goes."

Is this all possible?

If it is and there is a way to test it and it passes. Then perhaps we have our first Nobel coming from Physicsforums :)

 

[San K]

No, I don't see where you are getting that. The passage references interactions between the material around the slits (or grating) and the wavefunction of the molecules passing through. It further describes how such interactions modify the phase of the wavefunction.

The fact that the molecules are going through "1 by 1" is sort of "by definition" for a double slit experiment, which investigates interference of the wavefunction of a single particle as it passes through 2 (or more) slits. That is what we are discussing in this thread anyway.

SpectraCat,

i'll explain...

for a minute forget what i wrote above...

Now...

there were three topics/points I was interested in the above discussion:

1. Does the molecule go through the slit(s)?

2. Does the molecule arrive at the detector?

3. what Neumeier is proposing

4. modification to 3For 1 & 2 ...do we all agree the answer is yes?

now 3...the Neumeier hypothesis : I saw Spectracat reply

now 4...modification...i.e. the wavefunctions are constantly effected by the various factors such as is which-way info being got or not etc...thus the wavefunction almost instantaneously reflects the current conditions...thus whatever the conditions at the time of molecule striking the detector...the molecule behavior/location shall reflect...in my earlier post...i was saying that the van der wall effect would seem to suggest that the molecule indeed passed through the slits...however its a moot point..since the molecule must have passed...and we can always detect it via...its chemical signature...

thus just send one molecule (...which is what we do in the double slit experiment anyway)...and look as to where the molecule eventually landed (...i.e. between the slits or on the detector...)...sometimes it would land next to the slits...sometimes it would pass through the slit(s) and land on the detector...