Skip to main content
Home
plus.maths.org

Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Main navigation

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • For

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

      Popular topics and tags

      Shapes

      • Geometry
      • Vectors and matrices
      • Topology
      • Networks and graph theory
      • Fractals

      Numbers

      • Number theory
      • Arithmetic
      • Prime numbers
      • Fermat's last theorem
      • Cryptography

      Computing and information

      • Quantum computing
      • Complexity
      • Information theory
      • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
      • Algorithm

      Data and probability

      • Statistics
      • Probability and uncertainty
      • Randomness

      Abstract structures

      • Symmetry
      • Algebra and group theory
      • Vectors and matrices

      Physics

      • Fluid dynamics
      • Quantum physics
      • General relativity, gravity and black holes
      • Entropy and thermodynamics
      • String theory and quantum gravity

      Arts, humanities and sport

      • History and philosophy of mathematics
      • Art and Music
      • Language
      • Sport

      Logic, proof and strategy

      • Logic
      • Proof
      • Game theory

      Calculus and analysis

      • Differential equations
      • Calculus

      Towards applications

      • Mathematical modelling
      • Dynamical systems and Chaos

      Applications

      • Medicine and health
      • Epidemiology
      • Biology
      • Economics and finance
      • Engineering and architecture
      • Weather forecasting
      • Climate change

      Understanding of mathematics

      • Public understanding of mathematics
      • Education

      Get your maths quickly

      • Maths in a minute

      Main menu

    • Home
    • Articles
    • Collections
    • Podcasts
    • Maths in a minute
    • Puzzles
    • Videos
    • Topics and tags
    • Audiences

      • cat icon
        Curiosity
      • newspaper icon
        Media
      • graduation icon
        Education
      • briefcase icon
        Policy

      Secondary menu

    • My list
    • About Plus
    • Sponsors
    • Subscribe
    • Contact Us
    • Log in
    • The double slit experiement

      Physics in a minute: The double slit experiment

      19 November, 2020
      141 comments

      One of the most famous experiments in physics is the double slit experiment. It demonstrates, with unparalleled strangeness, that little particles of matter have something of a wave about them, and suggests that the very act of observing a particle has a dramatic effect on its behaviour.

      To start off, imagine a wall with two slits in it. Imagine throwing tennis balls at the wall. Some will bounce off the wall, but some will travel through the slits. If there's another wall behind the first, the tennis balls that have travelled through the slits will hit it. If you mark all the spots where a ball has hit the second wall, what do you expect to see? That's right. Two strips of marks roughly the same shape as the slits.

      In the image below, the first wall is shown from the top, and the second wall is shown from the front.

      Double slit

      The pattern you get from particles.

      Now imagine shining a light (of a single colour, that is, of a single wavelength) at a wall with two slits (where the distance between the slits is roughly the same as the light's wavelength). In the image below, we show the light wave and the wall from the top. The blue lines represent the peaks of the wave. As the wave passes though both slits, it essentially splits into two new waves, each spreading out from one of the slits. These two waves then interfere with each other. At some points, where a peak meets a trough, they will cancel each other out. And at others, where peak meets peak (that's where the blue curves cross in the diagram), they will reinforce each other. Places where the waves reinforce each other give the brightest light. When the light meets a second wall placed behind the first, you will see a stripy pattern, called an interference pattern. The bright stripes come from the waves reinforcing each other.

      Double slit

      An interference pattern.

      Here is a picture of a real interference pattern. There are more stripes because the picture captures more detail than our diagram. (For the sake of correctness, we should say that the image also shows a diffraction pattern, which you would get from a single slit, but we won't go into this here, and you don't need to think about it.)

      Double slit

      Image: Jordgette, CC BY-SA 3.0.

      Now let's go into the quantum realm. Imagine firing electrons at our wall with the two slits, but block one of those slits off for the moment. You'll find that some of the electrons will pass through the open slit and strike the second wall just as tennis balls would: the spots they arrive at form a strip roughly the same shape as the slit.

      Now open the second slit. You'd expect two rectangular strips on the second wall, as with the tennis balls, but what you actually see is very different: the spots where electrons hit build up to replicate the interference pattern from a wave.

      Double slit

       

      Here is an image of a real double slit experiment with electrons. The individual pictures show the pattern you get on the second wall as more and more electrons are fired. The result is a stripy interference pattern.

      Double slit

      Image: Dr. Tonomura and Belsazar, CC BY-SA 3.0

      How can this be?

      One possibility might be that the electrons somehow interfere with each other, so they don't arrive in the same places they would if they were alone. However, the interference pattern remains even when you fire the electrons one by one, so that they have no chance of interfering. Strangely, each individual electron contributes one dot to an overall pattern that looks like the interference pattern of a wave.

      Could it be that each electrons somehow splits, passes through both slits at once, interferes with itself, and then recombines to meet the second screen as a single, localised particle?

      To find out, you might place a detector by the slits, to see which slit an electron passes through. And that's the really weird bit. If you do that, then the pattern on the detector screen turns into the particle pattern of two strips, as seen in the first picture above! The interference pattern disappears. Somehow, the very act of looking makes sure that the electrons travel like well-behaved little tennis balls. It's as if they knew they were being spied on and decided not to be caught in the act of performing weird quantum shenanigans.

      What does the experiment tell us? It suggests that what we call "particles", such as electrons, somehow combine characteristics of particles and characteristics of waves. That's the famous wave particle duality of quantum mechanics. It also suggests that the act of observing, of measuring, a quantum system has a profound effect on the system. The question of exactly how that happens constitutes the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.


      Further reading

      • For an extremely gentle introduction to some of the strange aspects of quantum mechanics, read Watch and learn.
      • For a gentle introduction to quantum mechanics, read A ridiculously short introduction to some very basic quantum mechanics.
      • For a more detailed, but still reasonably gentle, introduction to quantum mechanics, read Schrödinger's equation — what is it?

      Originally published on 05/02/2017.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Comments

      Chad Cathorall

      21 June 2017

      Permalink

      The scientist at Washington University found that quasimeasurements cause the zeno effect possibly explaining why the particles do not form a interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Bill Mason

      16 September 2017

      In reply to Double slit experiment by Chad Cathorall

      Permalink

      Seem to be leaving out the fact that the difference occurs when being actively observed.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Dominic Gannon

      25 May 2019

      In reply to double slit experiment by Bill Mason

      Permalink

      Everything we see is our brain "interpreting" the photons of light reflected off a object. Just like our brains turns 30 FPS and up into a smooth video image. Any experiment that has the word "Observation" in it is flawed. A human used as test equipment for the observation part of a experiment can never be accurate.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Whatever

      14 November 2019

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      It has nothing to do with a human observing anything. It has to do with how one observes things at the atomic and quantum scale. We make these observations by bouncing other particles off of the particles we're interested in examining. At the macro-scale this is not a problem as the particles were bounce off of things are much smaller and have little no affects at the macro.

      But at the atomic and smaller scales, the particles we bounce off of things to observe them are similar in "size" (this is a stand in for mass, charge, etc.) to the particles we are trying to observe.

      You can think of it like trying to figure out where a billiard ball is by bouncing a golf ball it. That will change the position, spin, etc. of the billiard ball.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      DanLee

      4 May 2020

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      I agree with you. Yet, seemingly, the rest of the world either believes - when they do not believe what you've just said - humans have a psychic grip on subatomic particles, or this proves a God exists.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      M. Allen

      31 May 2021

      In reply to Agreement by DanLee

      Permalink

      I believe both, and agree with both of you. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive... It actually makes for a more narrow view that way.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      WILLIAM HOLLEY

      25 July 2021

      In reply to Why not both? by M. Allen

      Permalink

      I agree. What we don't know is much greater than what we do and much of what we think we know will change. I think it's best to leave room for many possibilities. Magic is just science undiscovered. If we keep placing boundaries on what's possible and teach others to ignore something for lack of explanations, scientific discovery suffers.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      James Tedesco

      27 September 2022

      In reply to Agreement by DanLee

      Permalink

      The duality of the particle has nothing to do with proving a god exists, just that science is indeterminate and is a duality of possible existences dependent on the observation of a consciousness. Seems like its human consciousness that determines the outcome not any god.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Jeff

      1 August 2020

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      This isn't actually true either. Experiments have shown that even if the photon used to make an observation is of low enough energy that it doesn't alter a large molecules trajectory much, the interference pattern still disappears.

      Also, null interaction experiments have been done in which there is no contact between particles at all. But if info about which slit can be found, the interference pattern disappears.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      LaughingProphet

      24 February 2021

      In reply to Double slit experiment by Jeff

      Permalink

      Hey, do you have a source on finding information about which slit with out active observation causing the interference pattern to not appear?

      • Log in or register to post comments

      John E. Diller

      1 July 2021

      In reply to Source for that? by LaughingProphet

      Permalink

      Try QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard P. Feynman. It's been a while since I've enjoyed this book, but my recollection is that it covered the topic well.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Tallon

      12 February 2022

      In reply to Double slit experiment by Jeff

      Permalink

      Thank you! I didn’t think that explanation made sense, since any effect upon the particle being observed would surely be taken into account in these experiments…and because the detection unit (which “catches” the electrons passing through either slit) doesn’t work by shooting particles at them, as far as I know…even if it did, that wouldn’t be ignored as a variable or whatever…right? I assume such interaction isn’t the method of detection anyway; how the materials used in the experiment could potentially influence the subject being measured is exactly what they control for, among other things- the environment itself, the actions taken as it is conducted and how conditions change…etc.
      I just don’t think what the commenter described is true since, well, I’d assume the researchers would know that sort of thing could skew the results & therefore lead to an incorrect conclusion. Scientists aren’t just straight up missing the impact of what would be such an obvious flaw in these experiments. I mean, in general they either eliminate the possibility of their tools affecting what they’re measuring OR they take that into account as a variable. Usually the second one is only possible if it’s something that like…as long as it’s known, it won’t render their data useless…if that makes sense (so being aware that it is a factor is key) Anyway…

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Suzanne

      16 November 2020

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      Molecules are much larger than photons, yet you get the same result.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Thomas M Koller

      25 May 2022

      In reply to yet this works at the molecular level too by Suzanne

      Permalink

      If a player has two attached low emission lasers either side of head, beamed through a double slit screen at, say, a home movie or scenario created by the player, bounces back as photons via player's retina to the player's neurons, will player perceive or believe he/she is part of the home movie?

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Joe010204

      9 August 2021

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      Placing only 1 detector in front of one of the double slits ALSO collapses the wave function of both slits. This unequivocally proves that it isn’t the measurement method, but the ACT of measurement itself.

      For example, we get the wave pattern. We place a detector in front of both holes we then get 2 bands. ..now, if it were the detector interfering as you mentioned, we will take 1 detector away and leave the other. This way only 1 slit has a detector that interacts with the electron as it passes through.

      This would mean the slit with the detector produces a band while the slit without the detector produces a partial striped pattern of the wave.

      This is not what we observe however. Measuring just 1 slit still causes 2 bands.

      This is because even measuring just 1 slit gives us information on the other. It’s the information that is seemingly the cause of the collapse of the wave function.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Chris

      7 October 2023

      In reply to Are you Sure? by Joe010204

      Permalink

      Hello, I like your idea of removing one detector to see if there is a tangible difference. Given how complex the science behind this is, it doesn't seem ethical to have a biased conclusion with such conviction after just 1 adjustment.

      Why has no one tried 3,4,5 slits? With those slits, why haven't we tried removing one detector at a time, and swapping out different ones for each slit? Speeding up or slowing down the particle beam? There are so many variables that could lead to comprehensible evidence if the results are as consistent to previous attempts.

      However, it just seems this experiment was done 60 years ago and then we just left it as is with no additional input or further experimentation; just copy paste imitations doing the same thing for educational purposes of the original experiment. That just becomes a history lesson, not a science one.

      I come here after watching a conspiracy theory and they referenced this experiment as the leading evidence that we live in a simulation, that the universe is just a projection controlled by a program that detects when its being observed like when a video game detects the players position and renders in whats necessary around them. Suggesting that the light particles can bend the rules of physics and time as soon as someone attempts to measure them.

      My initial reaction is not to believe this, however I fully appreciate a rebuttal to come armed with objective, comprehensible evidence like any good debate where possible.

      I think this experiment needs a make over and we need to breathe new life into it with far more variables to play with, leaving no stone unturned to draw a general trend and any potential outliers to help solve this once and for all. Or at least, as close as our minds will allow us.

      We are our own limitations.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Benzeta

      27 November 2023

      In reply to Process of Elimination by Chris

      Permalink

      I agree with you, the whole furore around this experiment has made it more of a history lesson. It's become almost like the Galileo stone/feather thing; i've had people tell me that in normal every-day circumstances, if i dropped a pen and a pebble at exactly the same moment, they would hit the floor at the same time. Even, when i demonstrate this live, people are still adamant in their stance; after-all, i'm no better than Galileo.

      This represents a great discrepancy to the original format of experiment by Galileo. I think some of these experiments have been so popularised in pop-culture and pop-science that people have ruled out the possibility of questioning them. Just like the Galileo stone and feather thing, Everyone is still quoting the same concept from decades ago without any iota of desire to question it. This means that some of these science-cum-history concepts are left to grow into "unquestionables" filled with errors.

      I think its about time we re-visit the whole premise of this experiment. Let's introduce 3,4, or even 10 slits! Let's do it today with more control over the variables. We can't let this become another one of the "unquestionables". We can't adopt beliefs and never question them. That would be disastrously dogmatic. The opposite of what it means to do real science!

      Also, what was the youtube video you watched? thanks

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Betsy Johnson

      11 August 2021

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      Uh...no. That is definitely not what happens. If so, there would be no conceptual problem. But don't take my word for it. Here's what Richard Feynman said: “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics." That's because QM seems to suggest that there's a real connection between the mind of the observer and the results obtained. Also, you're not taking into account the results of the quantum eraser phenomenon, which is another aspect of this experiment that suggests the trajectory of an electron in the past can be altered by an experimenter's actions in the present. You'll have to look it up as it's rather lengthy.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Sherry L Sass

      9 October 2021

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      Thank you so much for this explanation! We have been fretting about this for quite a while. I wish this physical interaction were more clearly included in other explanations of the slit experiment or just quantum mechanics and general

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Tallon

      12 February 2022

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      You’re saying to observe a particle we’re bouncing particles off of that observed particle? I don’t think that’s the case. What exactly is bouncing off the particle being observed? How is it being directed toward the target particle? With the way they design these experiments, as far as I know, there should be no overt effect like that- certainly not the actual impact of matter as you’re describing. I don’t think anything is being expelled from the detection materials. Or if it were, that would be taken into account- so precise calculations would be made about how it should impact the results.
      Basically, if something physical was being intentionally shot at the particles and that somehow was the way we detected them, then the scientists performing the research would do that math using specific measurements (including the mass of that projectile matter). I mean if there was anything being directed toward the electrons or whatever, they’d surely have an idea of what forces it would exert and the interaction it should have, etc…
      Now you could say the electron being observed has some effect upon the detection unit itself (the “quantum observer”) because logically, in order to even register the electron’s presence/position, it must. But I believe that by all known science, there shouldn’t be any effect upon the particle being observed- other than the fact that it’s being observed. That’s kind of the whole point and is exactly what makes this discovery so mind-blowing…right? So I would assume that in these experiments, they’re controlling for those conditions (the observation device having any physical effect or exerting force upon the observed electron, and all possible variables). Do you disagree? I am genuinely curious about what you’re asserting!

      • Log in or register to post comments

      g77enn

      28 May 2023

      In reply to Question for you by Tallon

      Permalink

      What if there are smaller units than photons, which are presently invisible to our instruments? We'll call them units of consciousness (or thought) that we as conscious beings emanate without knowing it, and it is these very tiny units of consciousness (relative to the photon) that influence the photons to behave as they do. In other words the invisible is influencing the visible like the soul influences the body. These same units could explain the placebo effect.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Pamela Talbot

      23 March 2023

      In reply to Uh...No by Whatever

      Permalink

      I agree to your theory. Just want to point it out there as a suggestion to proof read your work before submitting it. I have I found a couple of mistakes where a word had been left out.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Retep Eloop

      14 October 2023

      In reply to curtesy call by Pamela Talbot

      Permalink

      I thought it was well thought out and written. Has it been edited since your comment? If we're being semantic you may wish to check your spelling of courtesy.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Lauras

      18 November 2019

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      Objective observation, unlike subjective observation, is very much allowed in conducting data in experiments.

      Plus, unless you have robots conducting the experiment ans/or collecting the data, humans are going to be involved.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Suzanne

      16 November 2020

      In reply to Well..... by Lauras

      Permalink

      A houseplant would work too. Humans cannot see at this level in any case. Machinery is used, and humans don't have to be in the room for the effects to continue. Observation just means measurement, and Wheeler's Delayed Choice and the Quantum Eraser experiments showed the measurement can occur after the photon, electron, or molecule has hit the wall...and it will still change.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      John Clark

      18 November 2019

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      This word is used for convenience, but no conscious observer is required. You can also say “detected”. And by detected what is meant is that information exists that is, in principal, detectable even if not yet technically feasible. Look up “The World’s Smallest Double-Slit Experiment” (2007) and you will find that a single low-energy electron can be an “observer” and collapse the quantum interference pattern of a high-energy electron exiting a single hydrogen molecule.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Bleh

      18 November 2019

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      This is BS. When being observed by a sensor, electrons behave as particles. You lack sufficient understanding of the double slit experiment.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Blah

      5 April 2021

      In reply to Bleh by Bleh

      Permalink

      A summarily dismissal of a complex phenomenon that has world class physicists, accompanied by a " You don't understand" line illustrates a simple mind

      • Log in or register to post comments

      john wick

      6 October 2021

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      wrong

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Jonathan

      25 February 2022

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      Everything we recieve through our sences gets interpreted in our brains as being solid, founded by rules/laws/logic & most importantly being OUTSIDE our bodies, ie, being real. Reality is though, that these words you now read, are IN your head as is ALL experiences. Point being, WHY are we being TRICKED to think we are experiencing life OUTSIDE our heads when in fact, we are experiencing life IN our heads, just a observation.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Rev. Byrdman

      31 July 2022

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      The only reason a human may not be good test equipment for observation would be because the person lacks awareness. Human observation can be as accurate as any mechanical scientific devise. It just depends on the awareness of the individual.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      secphy

      16 July 2023

      In reply to Heisenberg uncertainty principle by Dominic Gannon

      Permalink

      by detector , they mean, not human but mechanical

      • Log in or register to post comments

      amy shmayme

      11 September 2019

      In reply to double slit experiment by Bill Mason

      Permalink

      "Seem to be leaving out the fact that the difference occurs when being actively observed" EXACTLY!! This experiment shows that matter is not what we think it is. Scientists have known this for a century yet scientific materialism for some reason still prevails. Matter is a product of Mind. NOT the other way around. For more information read "Ontological Mathematics"

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Brandon

      9 January 2020

      In reply to Double Split Experiment by amy shmayme

      Permalink

      That is not what comes out this. "Observer" is a misleading term. It does not specifically refer to humans, nor even conscious creatures, although they can be.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Albert Einstein

      16 January 2020

      In reply to double slit experiment by Bill Mason

      Permalink

      I do agree with you

      • Log in or register to post comments

      JM Urso

      17 July 2023

      In reply to double slit experiment by Bill Mason

      Permalink

      Ive noticed this trend everywhere. I chock it up to the materialists clinging to their dead ideology

      • Log in or register to post comments

      George G

      14 June 2023

      In reply to Double slit experiment by Chad Cathorall

      Permalink

      What happens as the distance between the slits becomes greater ?
      Is there a relationship between the distance between the slits, and the distance of the source from the slits??

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Chris Isaacson

      1 January 2018

      Permalink

      What if the light is reacting to the material the slits were cut out from. Maybe electromagnetism causing the light particles to bend and change their direction just like how planets and comets change their orbits when passing near something with mass.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Monis Alam

      24 April 2018

      In reply to Double slit by Chris Isaacson

      Permalink

      The double slits, are on the both sides of the direction of the flow of light. Also, the slit will be more massive on the two outer edges of the double slits. If it were to be hindered due to presence of slits, wouldn't the effect be more on the outer edges and not on the inner edges, i.e. in the middle.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      VonVerschwitz

      11 June 2018

      In reply to Double slit by Chris Isaacson

      Permalink

      Such is the problem. Particles don't bend when acted upon by electromagnetic fields. They simply form a trajectory. Bending or warping is the property of a wave. Their trajectory could be altered but I'm sure the material is neutral in all aspects to avoid interference.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      John Park

      29 December 2018

      In reply to Double Slit by VonVerschwitz

      Permalink

      Electrons have almost no mass and therefore almost no gravity. Atoms of the slit have a huge mass compared to the electrons. As the electrons passes the slit the gravity of the atoms cause some of the closest electrons to start to spin, the same way water spins when shot through a slit. This spin then sends some of the electrons out of their normal straight line trajectory which causes the apparent wave effect.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Louis

      3 January 2019

      In reply to Double slit experiment by John Park

      Permalink

      If that were the case it would happen if there was only one slit. But it doesn't.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      DARYL MESSENGER

      17 November 2019

      In reply to Double slit experiment by John Park

      Permalink
      • Log in or register to post comments

      Jeff

      20 June 2020

      In reply to Double slit experiment by John Park

      Permalink

      Electrons always have a spin of 1/2. This is a fundemental property of electrons and all fermions.
      Even if electrons were pushed off their trajectory, how do electrons shot one at a time form an interference pattern?

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Bc Magician

      5 June 2021

      In reply to Electrons spin by Jeff

      Permalink

      Because it behaves like wave regardless by itself or by groups

      • Log in or register to post comments

      No-all

      26 January 2022

      In reply to Electrons by Bc Magician

      Permalink

      When you say wave, do you mean as in bye bye?

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Daniel

      7 June 2022

      In reply to Double Slit by VonVerschwitz

      Permalink

      If light passes through two slits and it reflects off a object that photon leaves some of itself behind and continues on as if you put paint on your hand and slap a wall then run, how many walls you slap depends on how much paint you got, when light reflects off the object or the slit where does it go is it passing through itself or is it colliding with itself in that direction and handing itself some extra light to continue like say you been running with paint on your hand and you have a train of people that follow you and you are the leader. What if you grab just a finger swap of paint for that extra inch foot mile etc. so when the rays reflects off the rectangle will that rectangle of photons continue colliding into each other and handing itself more photons or snatching some to create a another rectangle and so on till it fades away.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Miklos Legrady, Toronto editor for Chicago's New Art Examine

      17 November 2019

      In reply to Double slit by Chris Isaacson

      Permalink

      I also thought the materials used may have properties that interfere, and the detector might too.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Richard Ocaya

      17 November 2019

      In reply to Double slit by Chris Isaacson

      Permalink

      How does the detector itself work? Does it not rely on an intrinsic property of electrons to function? Connecting the detector to that property then necessarily interferes with the experiment. That interference is then to be expected and can be explained rationally rather than through a spooky effect, quantum effect.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Alok Verma

      9 September 2020

      In reply to Double slit by Chris Isaacson

      Permalink

      Agree with you. Details of double/single slit experiments should give more information on the slits material, their dimensions (gap width and distance between slits) and the probability of these materials influencing the path/direction of WAVICLES (waves-cum-particles!). This topic needs to discussed and debated.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Pagination

      • Current page 1
      • Page 2
      • Page 3
      • Next page Next ›
      • Last page Last »

      You might also like

      package
      Cat

      Happy birthday quantum mechanics!

      To celebrate the 100th anniversary of quantum mechanics we bring together some of our introductory material on this marvellous theory. Expand your mind and enjoy!

      article

      A ridiculously short introduction to some very basic quantum mechanics

      Some general ideas in very few words and without equations.
      article

      Schrödinger's equation — what is it?

      In the 1920s the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger came up with what has become the central equation of quantum mechanics. It tells you all there is to know about a quantum physical system and it also predicts famous quantum weirdnesses such as superposition and quantum entanglement. In this, the first article of a three-part series, we introduce Schrödinger's equation and put it in its historical context.

      Read more about...

      quantum mechanics
      double slit experiment
      wave-particle duality
      Maths in a minute
      University of Cambridge logo

      Plus Magazine is part of the family of activities in the Millennium Mathematics Project.
      Copyright © 1997 - 2025. University of Cambridge. All rights reserved.

      Terms