Jump to
animations menu
Jump to
contents and animations menu
The Simple Universe
The
Double-Slit
Experiment
Light and the edges of objects
Sections
Suggested mechanism for diffraction
Quantum wave collapse
Diffraction with particles
Modern physics discussion on diffraction
The
Double-Slit
Experiment
Suggested mechanism for diffraction
The Standard model of particle physics models light as a quantum wave that has a wave-particle duality that explores all possible paths
Whereas in the Simple Universe model, light is a long thin particle that moves through space in an ordinary manner
The following animation shows the shapes and structures of the subatomic particles in the model - the button steps through the particles
The
button start / stops the animation
(any of the buttons can be used in pause mode)
The Subatomic Particles
The Simple Universe model has a 'neutral' particle that consists of equal amounts of positive and negative electric charge
And in the model, the proton is a positron sandwiched between two of the 'neutral' particles
And the neutron is a proton with an electron embedded into the side of the proton
In the Simple Universe model, light is not affected by the electric field particles of the electron or positron
But light is affected by the positive and negative electric field particles of the 'neutral' particles that are part of the proton
As a suggestion, the electric field particles of the 'neutral' particle, are longer in length than the electric field particles of the electron and positron
Their longer length allows the 'neutral' particle electric field particles to wrap around a particle of light, stretching out one side of the particle of light, while compressing up its other side
Causing the particle of light to arc along its body and alter its direction
The following animation shows the electron, positron, 'neutral' particle, neutrino and particle of light in the model, interacting with the short and long electric field particles - the button steps through the interactions, and the 23 input box lists the interactions for direct selection
The
button start / stops the animation
(any of the buttons can be used in pause mode)
Electric Fields
As a suggestion, for an object as a whole, the pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields from one atomic nucleus
Might trigger the release of the positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields from its neighbouring nuclei
If so, then the synchronisation could spread, resulting in the object having a synchronised, pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric field at the surface of the object that is able to interact with light
In the double-slit experiment, when light passes near the end of a slit, the light would then be affected by the synchronised pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric field at the slit's edge
And the light would be directed around the edge of the slit, in the same way that light in the model is directed around the nucleus of an atom
As a suggestion, the path of the light is altered as a diffraction pattern
And when two slits are present, the synchronised pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields at the edges of the two slits overlap, producing a different diffraction pattern
As a suggestion, this is why the type of diffraction pattern produced by the light passing through a slit, is affected by how many slits are present
Return to top
The
Double-Slit
Experiment
Quantum wave collapse
The Standard model of particle physics uses the concept that a photon is in multiple places at the same time, and that a photon is able to produce an interference pattern in its own path through space
Whereas in the Simple Universe model, the cause of the variation in the path of the light through a slit, is the pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields at the edge of the slit, acting on each particle of light as each particle of light passes the edge of the slit
The Standard model of particle physics also uses the concept that a photon, or a subatomic particle, is a quantum wave that collapses into a particle on being observed
Whereas in the Simple Universe model, when a detector is brought close to a slit, the detector's pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields are unlikely to be in sync with the barrier's pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields
As a suggestion, this unsynchronised overlap causes the positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields surrounding the corner edge of the slit next to the detector, to appear smoothed out
Causing the positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields to be unable to vary the path of the light through that slit as its previous diffraction pattern
Return to top
The
Double-Slit
Experiment
Diffraction with particles
When performing the double-slit experiment, the pulsating positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields from the corner edge of a slit
Would be able to alter the path of a beam of particles of matter as well as a beam of particles of light
In the model, all moving particles of matter have a particle of light that is pushing the particle of matter along
Since the path of light is affected by the edges of the slits, then so too would the path of a moving particle of matter and its attached particle of light be affected by the edges of the slits
Whether that be an electron, atom or molecule
The positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields from the edges of the slits do not change the path of the moving particle of matter directly
The positive and negative 'neutral' particle electric fields change the path of the particle of light that is pushing the particle of matter along
The following animation shows particles of light in the model attaching themselves to an electron and an electron pair, and pushing the electrons along
The
button start / stops the animation
(any of the buttons can be used in pause mode)
Matter And Light
Here is an old video that discusses
the
double-slit
experiment in the model
And an old video that discusses
light in an electric field in the model
(ignore the naming of the 'neutral' particle
as a
'dark matter'
particle)
Return to top
The
Double-Slit
Experiment
Modern physics discussion on diffraction
For reference, here is a YouTube video (2013) of Professor Jim Al-Khalili's Royal Institution lecture discussing the double-slit experiment
Lecture on the double-slit experiment
0 minutes : mystery of quantum mechanics
1 minutes : the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment
2 minutes : the double-slit experiment with atoms
7 minutes : results of the double-slit experiment
8 minutes : quantum entanglement
The YouTube video has a comment by Professor Jim Al-Khalili
"If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you"
Return to top
And for further reference, here is a YouTube video (2023) of Alex McColgan of the Astrum YouTube channel discussing why the nature of light is difficult to understand
Discussion on the nature of light
0 minutes : light is surprisingly difficult to understand
2 minutes : the wave nature of light in the double-slit experiment
4 minutes : the particle nature of light in the photo electric effect
6 minutes : the nature of light analysed
15 minutes : particles of matter have a dual nature too
Return to top
This is a question posted on the public forum Quora asking what does it mean to say that an electron goes through both slits in the double-slit experiment
"In the double-slit experiment, people say that, mathematically, an electron goes through both slits, no slits, and one slit, and that all these possibilities are 'in superposition' with each other
What does this mean and do we know why it happens?
And the reply (copyright Kip Ingram 2023)
There is a lot of confusion about this because of sloppy language. In quantum theory we say that particles (or, the things we call particles, at any rate) are "represented by their wave function"
But most people don't know how to think about the wave function. The first knee-jerk reaction is to want to think about it as something that is defined "in physical space". I.e. the wave function "has a value here", "has a value there", and so on.
That is sometimes a reasonable thing to say. If you happen to be measuring the position of a single particle, you can get away with it
On the other hand, if you are measuring, say, momentum, then you really need to think of the wave function as being defined in a "space of momentum measurements"
If you're measuring spin, you think of it as being defined on a space of spin measurements. In these latter cases no distribution in physical space has any meaning or relevance
The wave function exists in a space of whatever it is you are planning to measure. It's distributed over possible measurement results
In the double slit experiment, what you eventually wind up measuring are locations on that screen, where you see the flashes. The wave function winds up having a particular value at each point on the screen, and you can use those values to determine the probability of seeing a flash there
All of those locations on the screen are, in fact, in physical space. So, in this case you can arrive at a reasonable understanding of things by thinking of the wave function as moving through space, from the particle source to the location on the screen you are considering
It's not sensible, though, to look at the wave function at some other place in the system (say, at one of the slits) and say "that is the electron"
When you run the experiment in the normal way - the way that leads to an interference pattern, you have no knowledge of where the electron is prior to seeing one of those flashes
Your intuition wants to assume that it followed a well-defined path from the source to the screen, but that's precisely what you cannot do
You gathered no information about the location of the electron except for that one flash you see on the screen, at the very end. The structure of the experiment tells you that the two slits had to be on the path - else the electron would never have made it to the screen. But you have no knowledge about any details beyond that
Basically it is just invalid to even think about any "details" of the path in between source and slit. You provided an apparatus that allowed electrons to leave the source and arrive at the screen. They did. That's the end of the story - don't try to infer or assume further details
In order to compute the probability of getting a flash at some screen location, you have to add together a term that represents one of the slits and a term that represents the other slit
But you cannot say that the electron "itself" (the whole thing, as a localized particle) went through one slit or the other. The electron was not a localized thing until you saw that flash
On the other hand, if you stick a, 'which slit sensor' in there, then that gives you more information. You now can say that the electron was in a particular position at some point in time as it moved through the apparatus
And your interference pattern vanishes. You changed the conditions of the experiment, and that changed the outcome. No surprise there
Usually you work out these calculations by assuming that the electron followed a straight path from the source to a slit, and then a straight path from the slit to the screen
That is an approximation - a more fully correct calculation would consider all of the possibly bizarre paths the electron might have followed. Most of those terms will cancel one another out - that's why the straight-line assumption is a reasonable one to make. But it's not "exact"
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that in this specific case, where you are ultimately caring about an electron's position, and you're only dealing with one electron at a time, you can "pretend" that the wave function is defined throughout physical space
"The electron" in some sense is that whole distribution of values - it's simply not "at" specific well-defined positions as it moves through the apparatus. And in more complicated multi-particle problems, or problems where your ultimate measurement is something other than position, you can't think of the wave function as being "in physical space" at all
It lives in some other problem-dependent "space". And you cannot look at one little portion of the wave function, somewhere within that space, and say "that is the particle". That small portion of the wave function is just an "aspect" of the particle. A bit of potentiality re: what you may eventually measure
Stay safe and well!
Kip
Summary
Return to top
