In the double-slit experiment, why is it never shown that particles may hit the space between or outside the slits?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
33
down vote

favorite
3












In depictions of the double-slit experiment that model the photon or electron as a particle, i.e. when attempting to measure which slit the particle passes through, it always shows the particle entering one of the two slits. Why is it that the particle can't hit the space between or outside the slits, i.e. never even make it through? Is it implied that the experiment is just repeated until a particle makes it through, i.e. shows up on the film or detector on the other side?



I see how, modeled as a wave, the wave always makes it through. But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 4




    I think you are correct in thinking that the wave interpretation is conditional on the fact that there was no collapse of the wave-function at the slit. Those photons or electrons are being ignored.
    – DWin
    Nov 26 at 8:24






  • 3




    Why do score results in sports not include a record of every goal that was attempted but not successful?
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 26 at 15:44






  • 3




    @Shufflepants ... because methodology doesn't count in those sports?
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 15:46






  • 6




    @Shufflepants often stats like "shots on goal" are recorded.
    – Jon P
    Nov 27 at 0:27










  • @JonP That's why I specified "score results". In the same way, there are likely studies that do make mention of rate of particles failing to pass through the slits. It was just a question aimed at getting the OP to realize why nobody talks about the particles that didn't pass through the slits.
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 27 at 4:11














up vote
33
down vote

favorite
3












In depictions of the double-slit experiment that model the photon or electron as a particle, i.e. when attempting to measure which slit the particle passes through, it always shows the particle entering one of the two slits. Why is it that the particle can't hit the space between or outside the slits, i.e. never even make it through? Is it implied that the experiment is just repeated until a particle makes it through, i.e. shows up on the film or detector on the other side?



I see how, modeled as a wave, the wave always makes it through. But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 4




    I think you are correct in thinking that the wave interpretation is conditional on the fact that there was no collapse of the wave-function at the slit. Those photons or electrons are being ignored.
    – DWin
    Nov 26 at 8:24






  • 3




    Why do score results in sports not include a record of every goal that was attempted but not successful?
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 26 at 15:44






  • 3




    @Shufflepants ... because methodology doesn't count in those sports?
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 15:46






  • 6




    @Shufflepants often stats like "shots on goal" are recorded.
    – Jon P
    Nov 27 at 0:27










  • @JonP That's why I specified "score results". In the same way, there are likely studies that do make mention of rate of particles failing to pass through the slits. It was just a question aimed at getting the OP to realize why nobody talks about the particles that didn't pass through the slits.
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 27 at 4:11












up vote
33
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
33
down vote

favorite
3






3





In depictions of the double-slit experiment that model the photon or electron as a particle, i.e. when attempting to measure which slit the particle passes through, it always shows the particle entering one of the two slits. Why is it that the particle can't hit the space between or outside the slits, i.e. never even make it through? Is it implied that the experiment is just repeated until a particle makes it through, i.e. shows up on the film or detector on the other side?



I see how, modeled as a wave, the wave always makes it through. But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?










share|cite|improve this question















In depictions of the double-slit experiment that model the photon or electron as a particle, i.e. when attempting to measure which slit the particle passes through, it always shows the particle entering one of the two slits. Why is it that the particle can't hit the space between or outside the slits, i.e. never even make it through? Is it implied that the experiment is just repeated until a particle makes it through, i.e. shows up on the film or detector on the other side?



I see how, modeled as a wave, the wave always makes it through. But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?







quantum-mechanics double-slit-experiment wave-particle-duality






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 26 at 9:10









Qmechanic

100k121801128




100k121801128










asked Nov 26 at 8:08









Andrew Cheong

341312




341312







  • 4




    I think you are correct in thinking that the wave interpretation is conditional on the fact that there was no collapse of the wave-function at the slit. Those photons or electrons are being ignored.
    – DWin
    Nov 26 at 8:24






  • 3




    Why do score results in sports not include a record of every goal that was attempted but not successful?
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 26 at 15:44






  • 3




    @Shufflepants ... because methodology doesn't count in those sports?
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 15:46






  • 6




    @Shufflepants often stats like "shots on goal" are recorded.
    – Jon P
    Nov 27 at 0:27










  • @JonP That's why I specified "score results". In the same way, there are likely studies that do make mention of rate of particles failing to pass through the slits. It was just a question aimed at getting the OP to realize why nobody talks about the particles that didn't pass through the slits.
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 27 at 4:11












  • 4




    I think you are correct in thinking that the wave interpretation is conditional on the fact that there was no collapse of the wave-function at the slit. Those photons or electrons are being ignored.
    – DWin
    Nov 26 at 8:24






  • 3




    Why do score results in sports not include a record of every goal that was attempted but not successful?
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 26 at 15:44






  • 3




    @Shufflepants ... because methodology doesn't count in those sports?
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 15:46






  • 6




    @Shufflepants often stats like "shots on goal" are recorded.
    – Jon P
    Nov 27 at 0:27










  • @JonP That's why I specified "score results". In the same way, there are likely studies that do make mention of rate of particles failing to pass through the slits. It was just a question aimed at getting the OP to realize why nobody talks about the particles that didn't pass through the slits.
    – Shufflepants
    Nov 27 at 4:11







4




4




I think you are correct in thinking that the wave interpretation is conditional on the fact that there was no collapse of the wave-function at the slit. Those photons or electrons are being ignored.
– DWin
Nov 26 at 8:24




I think you are correct in thinking that the wave interpretation is conditional on the fact that there was no collapse of the wave-function at the slit. Those photons or electrons are being ignored.
– DWin
Nov 26 at 8:24




3




3




Why do score results in sports not include a record of every goal that was attempted but not successful?
– Shufflepants
Nov 26 at 15:44




Why do score results in sports not include a record of every goal that was attempted but not successful?
– Shufflepants
Nov 26 at 15:44




3




3




@Shufflepants ... because methodology doesn't count in those sports?
– Andrew Cheong
Nov 26 at 15:46




@Shufflepants ... because methodology doesn't count in those sports?
– Andrew Cheong
Nov 26 at 15:46




6




6




@Shufflepants often stats like "shots on goal" are recorded.
– Jon P
Nov 27 at 0:27




@Shufflepants often stats like "shots on goal" are recorded.
– Jon P
Nov 27 at 0:27












@JonP That's why I specified "score results". In the same way, there are likely studies that do make mention of rate of particles failing to pass through the slits. It was just a question aimed at getting the OP to realize why nobody talks about the particles that didn't pass through the slits.
– Shufflepants
Nov 27 at 4:11




@JonP That's why I specified "score results". In the same way, there are likely studies that do make mention of rate of particles failing to pass through the slits. It was just a question aimed at getting the OP to realize why nobody talks about the particles that didn't pass through the slits.
– Shufflepants
Nov 27 at 4:11










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
56
down vote



accepted










"Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?" you ask. The answer is simply: yes it is because they are simplified illustrations.



Furthermore, not only can the particle hit the barrier outside or between the slits, typically most of the particles do that. Only a small fraction make it through. I say 'typically' because in such experiments we don't normally bother to set up the optics (whether for photons or electrons) so as to restrict illumination to only the two slits and not the surrounding area. But in principle it could be done, and then only a few particles would miss the slits.



It is quite common, in experimental physics in this area, to do what is called 'post-selection'. That is the name for the practice of selecting from your dataset only those outcomes triggered by some signal, such as, in this case, the signal that a dot appeared somewhere on the final screen. Then after that the discussion is really saying not 'this is what happened in every run' but 'of those runs where something made it to the detector, this is what happened'. One can regard the simplified pictures as showing what is understood to have happened for those runs which were singled out by this 'post-selection'.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 16:05







  • 1




    Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 26 at 17:30






  • 1




    @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
    – MSalters
    Nov 27 at 15:10










  • @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
    – Draco18s
    Nov 28 at 14:17

















up vote
9
down vote













If you look up Doctor Quantum on youtube you'll find some (horribly dated) 3D animation videos that DO show the particles that bounce off the space outside the slits. At least initially in the 'marble' demonstration (the first light one also shows illumination on the slit device). They are culled later because of the same reason they've been culled from other examples of the double slit experiment.



And that reason these particles aren't shown is because they are irrelevant: they don't pass through the slits and so are not part of the "what happens when they pass through the slits" experiment.



Its kind of like asking why people under the age of 18 aren't included in election polling data. Surely these people exist!






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
    – Neil
    Nov 28 at 11:03

















up vote
3
down vote













When I performed this experiment the last time, I used a laser, so no single photons were fired, but an endless stream of photons, so to say. Then, the double slit was so positioned that the maximal intensity way measured at the detection screen (with a photometer).



That some photons hit the area between or outside the slits is very likely, as the laser itself has a certain cross-section. Then, the wave-function would collapse or the photons are reflected and therefore not measured.



In theory, if you perform this experiment with one photon, what would you expect? Well, your wave function should include the possibility of a reflected (or not visible / detected) photon with a non-zero probability. Then, an experiment on it would only make sense with many many measurements, to have a reliable statistic for you probability-distribution, so you end up with doing the experiment many times.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Here is a double slit experiment one electron at a time hitting the screen:



    dbls



    The quantum mechanical setup is : "electron of given momentum scattering on two slits a fixed distance apart , a fixed width". The screen shows the electrons which go through.



    The quantum mechanical solution, i.e. the wavefunction $Ψ$ whose $Ψ^*Ψ$ gives the final probability distribution shown in the last frame, gives the probability for the electron to go through the "barrier of two slits" and hit the screen.



    Though the distance between slits is small, if one could place a detector there, or a photo-luminescent material, there will be a probability of detecting the electrons having a probability to hit there. One does not need to confirm this, as the wave nature of the probability is evident in the interference pattern.




    But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?




    It should be clear from the above then, that the electrons are not classical particles, and should not be extrapolated on a two dimensional graph as particles, except as an approximation over large distances where they do not interact.






    share|cite|improve this answer


















    • 17




      This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
      – Martin Bonner
      Nov 26 at 11:19










    • @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
      – anna v
      Nov 26 at 15:38










    • The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
      – Martin Bonner
      Nov 26 at 15:50










    • @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
      – anna v
      Nov 26 at 15:56











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443358%2fin-the-double-slit-experiment-why-is-it-never-shown-that-particles-may-hit-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    56
    down vote



    accepted










    "Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?" you ask. The answer is simply: yes it is because they are simplified illustrations.



    Furthermore, not only can the particle hit the barrier outside or between the slits, typically most of the particles do that. Only a small fraction make it through. I say 'typically' because in such experiments we don't normally bother to set up the optics (whether for photons or electrons) so as to restrict illumination to only the two slits and not the surrounding area. But in principle it could be done, and then only a few particles would miss the slits.



    It is quite common, in experimental physics in this area, to do what is called 'post-selection'. That is the name for the practice of selecting from your dataset only those outcomes triggered by some signal, such as, in this case, the signal that a dot appeared somewhere on the final screen. Then after that the discussion is really saying not 'this is what happened in every run' but 'of those runs where something made it to the detector, this is what happened'. One can regard the simplified pictures as showing what is understood to have happened for those runs which were singled out by this 'post-selection'.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
      – Andrew Cheong
      Nov 26 at 16:05







    • 1




      Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 26 at 17:30






    • 1




      @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
      – MSalters
      Nov 27 at 15:10










    • @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
      – Draco18s
      Nov 28 at 14:17














    up vote
    56
    down vote



    accepted










    "Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?" you ask. The answer is simply: yes it is because they are simplified illustrations.



    Furthermore, not only can the particle hit the barrier outside or between the slits, typically most of the particles do that. Only a small fraction make it through. I say 'typically' because in such experiments we don't normally bother to set up the optics (whether for photons or electrons) so as to restrict illumination to only the two slits and not the surrounding area. But in principle it could be done, and then only a few particles would miss the slits.



    It is quite common, in experimental physics in this area, to do what is called 'post-selection'. That is the name for the practice of selecting from your dataset only those outcomes triggered by some signal, such as, in this case, the signal that a dot appeared somewhere on the final screen. Then after that the discussion is really saying not 'this is what happened in every run' but 'of those runs where something made it to the detector, this is what happened'. One can regard the simplified pictures as showing what is understood to have happened for those runs which were singled out by this 'post-selection'.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
      – Andrew Cheong
      Nov 26 at 16:05







    • 1




      Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 26 at 17:30






    • 1




      @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
      – MSalters
      Nov 27 at 15:10










    • @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
      – Draco18s
      Nov 28 at 14:17












    up vote
    56
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    56
    down vote



    accepted






    "Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?" you ask. The answer is simply: yes it is because they are simplified illustrations.



    Furthermore, not only can the particle hit the barrier outside or between the slits, typically most of the particles do that. Only a small fraction make it through. I say 'typically' because in such experiments we don't normally bother to set up the optics (whether for photons or electrons) so as to restrict illumination to only the two slits and not the surrounding area. But in principle it could be done, and then only a few particles would miss the slits.



    It is quite common, in experimental physics in this area, to do what is called 'post-selection'. That is the name for the practice of selecting from your dataset only those outcomes triggered by some signal, such as, in this case, the signal that a dot appeared somewhere on the final screen. Then after that the discussion is really saying not 'this is what happened in every run' but 'of those runs where something made it to the detector, this is what happened'. One can regard the simplified pictures as showing what is understood to have happened for those runs which were singled out by this 'post-selection'.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    "Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?" you ask. The answer is simply: yes it is because they are simplified illustrations.



    Furthermore, not only can the particle hit the barrier outside or between the slits, typically most of the particles do that. Only a small fraction make it through. I say 'typically' because in such experiments we don't normally bother to set up the optics (whether for photons or electrons) so as to restrict illumination to only the two slits and not the surrounding area. But in principle it could be done, and then only a few particles would miss the slits.



    It is quite common, in experimental physics in this area, to do what is called 'post-selection'. That is the name for the practice of selecting from your dataset only those outcomes triggered by some signal, such as, in this case, the signal that a dot appeared somewhere on the final screen. Then after that the discussion is really saying not 'this is what happened in every run' but 'of those runs where something made it to the detector, this is what happened'. One can regard the simplified pictures as showing what is understood to have happened for those runs which were singled out by this 'post-selection'.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 26 at 11:24









    Andrew Steane

    2,394525




    2,394525











    • I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
      – Andrew Cheong
      Nov 26 at 16:05







    • 1




      Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 26 at 17:30






    • 1




      @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
      – MSalters
      Nov 27 at 15:10










    • @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
      – Draco18s
      Nov 28 at 14:17
















    • I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
      – Andrew Cheong
      Nov 26 at 16:05







    • 1




      Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 26 at 17:30






    • 1




      @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
      – MSalters
      Nov 27 at 15:10










    • @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
      – Draco18s
      Nov 28 at 14:17















    I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 16:05





    I see, thanks. So, am I correct to imagine that the "which way" information is more like this: a which-way time series, and a when-which-electron-hit-the-back-wall time series, the two of which the experimenters can line up to have which-way information about each particular electron. I'm just trying to make these hypothetical experiments as concrete as possible so I can catch any misconceptions I may have.
    – Andrew Cheong
    Nov 26 at 16:05





    1




    1




    Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 26 at 17:30




    Yes. Suppose the luminosity is quite low, say 1 photon or electron per second making it through the whole journey to the final detection screen. A which-way detector registers some sort of signal each time a particle goes by, with a different signal for each slit, and we may suppose its response time is fast compared to one second in this example.
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 26 at 17:30




    1




    1




    @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
    – MSalters
    Nov 27 at 15:10




    @AndrewSteane: I understand your remark about the "detector with a different signal for each slit", but for someone who is not familiar with quantum physics this leaves out a crucial detail. This set-up alters the outcome! You no longer get the diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment. Instead, you get a mixture of two single-slot diffraction patterns. This has been experimentally validated. The measurement directly affects the outcome.
    – MSalters
    Nov 27 at 15:10












    @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
    – Draco18s
    Nov 28 at 14:17




    @MSalters It gets weirder than that. You can decide after the fact whether or not you detect which slit the photon comes through. Its called the Quantum Time Eraser or Delayed Choice Eraser. I think it was this video that had the visuals that made it click for me why the interference pattern change happens the way it happens. If not there's a bunch of others and I've seen most of the top 10.
    – Draco18s
    Nov 28 at 14:17










    up vote
    9
    down vote













    If you look up Doctor Quantum on youtube you'll find some (horribly dated) 3D animation videos that DO show the particles that bounce off the space outside the slits. At least initially in the 'marble' demonstration (the first light one also shows illumination on the slit device). They are culled later because of the same reason they've been culled from other examples of the double slit experiment.



    And that reason these particles aren't shown is because they are irrelevant: they don't pass through the slits and so are not part of the "what happens when they pass through the slits" experiment.



    Its kind of like asking why people under the age of 18 aren't included in election polling data. Surely these people exist!






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
      – Neil
      Nov 28 at 11:03














    up vote
    9
    down vote













    If you look up Doctor Quantum on youtube you'll find some (horribly dated) 3D animation videos that DO show the particles that bounce off the space outside the slits. At least initially in the 'marble' demonstration (the first light one also shows illumination on the slit device). They are culled later because of the same reason they've been culled from other examples of the double slit experiment.



    And that reason these particles aren't shown is because they are irrelevant: they don't pass through the slits and so are not part of the "what happens when they pass through the slits" experiment.



    Its kind of like asking why people under the age of 18 aren't included in election polling data. Surely these people exist!






    share|cite|improve this answer






















    • If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
      – Neil
      Nov 28 at 11:03












    up vote
    9
    down vote










    up vote
    9
    down vote









    If you look up Doctor Quantum on youtube you'll find some (horribly dated) 3D animation videos that DO show the particles that bounce off the space outside the slits. At least initially in the 'marble' demonstration (the first light one also shows illumination on the slit device). They are culled later because of the same reason they've been culled from other examples of the double slit experiment.



    And that reason these particles aren't shown is because they are irrelevant: they don't pass through the slits and so are not part of the "what happens when they pass through the slits" experiment.



    Its kind of like asking why people under the age of 18 aren't included in election polling data. Surely these people exist!






    share|cite|improve this answer














    If you look up Doctor Quantum on youtube you'll find some (horribly dated) 3D animation videos that DO show the particles that bounce off the space outside the slits. At least initially in the 'marble' demonstration (the first light one also shows illumination on the slit device). They are culled later because of the same reason they've been culled from other examples of the double slit experiment.



    And that reason these particles aren't shown is because they are irrelevant: they don't pass through the slits and so are not part of the "what happens when they pass through the slits" experiment.



    Its kind of like asking why people under the age of 18 aren't included in election polling data. Surely these people exist!







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Nov 28 at 14:19

























    answered Nov 26 at 17:41









    Draco18s

    2006




    2006











    • If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
      – Neil
      Nov 28 at 11:03
















    • If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
      – Neil
      Nov 28 at 11:03















    If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
    – Neil
    Nov 28 at 11:03




    If you checked how people under the age of 18 voted, you may or may not be surprised to learn that none of them voted!
    – Neil
    Nov 28 at 11:03










    up vote
    3
    down vote













    When I performed this experiment the last time, I used a laser, so no single photons were fired, but an endless stream of photons, so to say. Then, the double slit was so positioned that the maximal intensity way measured at the detection screen (with a photometer).



    That some photons hit the area between or outside the slits is very likely, as the laser itself has a certain cross-section. Then, the wave-function would collapse or the photons are reflected and therefore not measured.



    In theory, if you perform this experiment with one photon, what would you expect? Well, your wave function should include the possibility of a reflected (or not visible / detected) photon with a non-zero probability. Then, an experiment on it would only make sense with many many measurements, to have a reliable statistic for you probability-distribution, so you end up with doing the experiment many times.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      When I performed this experiment the last time, I used a laser, so no single photons were fired, but an endless stream of photons, so to say. Then, the double slit was so positioned that the maximal intensity way measured at the detection screen (with a photometer).



      That some photons hit the area between or outside the slits is very likely, as the laser itself has a certain cross-section. Then, the wave-function would collapse or the photons are reflected and therefore not measured.



      In theory, if you perform this experiment with one photon, what would you expect? Well, your wave function should include the possibility of a reflected (or not visible / detected) photon with a non-zero probability. Then, an experiment on it would only make sense with many many measurements, to have a reliable statistic for you probability-distribution, so you end up with doing the experiment many times.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        When I performed this experiment the last time, I used a laser, so no single photons were fired, but an endless stream of photons, so to say. Then, the double slit was so positioned that the maximal intensity way measured at the detection screen (with a photometer).



        That some photons hit the area between or outside the slits is very likely, as the laser itself has a certain cross-section. Then, the wave-function would collapse or the photons are reflected and therefore not measured.



        In theory, if you perform this experiment with one photon, what would you expect? Well, your wave function should include the possibility of a reflected (or not visible / detected) photon with a non-zero probability. Then, an experiment on it would only make sense with many many measurements, to have a reliable statistic for you probability-distribution, so you end up with doing the experiment many times.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        When I performed this experiment the last time, I used a laser, so no single photons were fired, but an endless stream of photons, so to say. Then, the double slit was so positioned that the maximal intensity way measured at the detection screen (with a photometer).



        That some photons hit the area between or outside the slits is very likely, as the laser itself has a certain cross-section. Then, the wave-function would collapse or the photons are reflected and therefore not measured.



        In theory, if you perform this experiment with one photon, what would you expect? Well, your wave function should include the possibility of a reflected (or not visible / detected) photon with a non-zero probability. Then, an experiment on it would only make sense with many many measurements, to have a reliable statistic for you probability-distribution, so you end up with doing the experiment many times.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 26 at 9:13









        kalle

        16311




        16311




















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Here is a double slit experiment one electron at a time hitting the screen:



            dbls



            The quantum mechanical setup is : "electron of given momentum scattering on two slits a fixed distance apart , a fixed width". The screen shows the electrons which go through.



            The quantum mechanical solution, i.e. the wavefunction $Ψ$ whose $Ψ^*Ψ$ gives the final probability distribution shown in the last frame, gives the probability for the electron to go through the "barrier of two slits" and hit the screen.



            Though the distance between slits is small, if one could place a detector there, or a photo-luminescent material, there will be a probability of detecting the electrons having a probability to hit there. One does not need to confirm this, as the wave nature of the probability is evident in the interference pattern.




            But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?




            It should be clear from the above then, that the electrons are not classical particles, and should not be extrapolated on a two dimensional graph as particles, except as an approximation over large distances where they do not interact.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 17




              This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 11:19










            • @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:38










            • The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 15:50










            • @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:56















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Here is a double slit experiment one electron at a time hitting the screen:



            dbls



            The quantum mechanical setup is : "electron of given momentum scattering on two slits a fixed distance apart , a fixed width". The screen shows the electrons which go through.



            The quantum mechanical solution, i.e. the wavefunction $Ψ$ whose $Ψ^*Ψ$ gives the final probability distribution shown in the last frame, gives the probability for the electron to go through the "barrier of two slits" and hit the screen.



            Though the distance between slits is small, if one could place a detector there, or a photo-luminescent material, there will be a probability of detecting the electrons having a probability to hit there. One does not need to confirm this, as the wave nature of the probability is evident in the interference pattern.




            But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?




            It should be clear from the above then, that the electrons are not classical particles, and should not be extrapolated on a two dimensional graph as particles, except as an approximation over large distances where they do not interact.






            share|cite|improve this answer


















            • 17




              This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 11:19










            • @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:38










            • The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 15:50










            • @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:56













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Here is a double slit experiment one electron at a time hitting the screen:



            dbls



            The quantum mechanical setup is : "electron of given momentum scattering on two slits a fixed distance apart , a fixed width". The screen shows the electrons which go through.



            The quantum mechanical solution, i.e. the wavefunction $Ψ$ whose $Ψ^*Ψ$ gives the final probability distribution shown in the last frame, gives the probability for the electron to go through the "barrier of two slits" and hit the screen.



            Though the distance between slits is small, if one could place a detector there, or a photo-luminescent material, there will be a probability of detecting the electrons having a probability to hit there. One does not need to confirm this, as the wave nature of the probability is evident in the interference pattern.




            But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?




            It should be clear from the above then, that the electrons are not classical particles, and should not be extrapolated on a two dimensional graph as particles, except as an approximation over large distances where they do not interact.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Here is a double slit experiment one electron at a time hitting the screen:



            dbls



            The quantum mechanical setup is : "electron of given momentum scattering on two slits a fixed distance apart , a fixed width". The screen shows the electrons which go through.



            The quantum mechanical solution, i.e. the wavefunction $Ψ$ whose $Ψ^*Ψ$ gives the final probability distribution shown in the last frame, gives the probability for the electron to go through the "barrier of two slits" and hit the screen.



            Though the distance between slits is small, if one could place a detector there, or a photo-luminescent material, there will be a probability of detecting the electrons having a probability to hit there. One does not need to confirm this, as the wave nature of the probability is evident in the interference pattern.




            But the illustrations of particles kind of don't make sense to me. Is it because they are just simplified illustrations?




            It should be clear from the above then, that the electrons are not classical particles, and should not be extrapolated on a two dimensional graph as particles, except as an approximation over large distances where they do not interact.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 26 at 15:39

























            answered Nov 26 at 9:03









            anna v

            155k7148444




            155k7148444







            • 17




              This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 11:19










            • @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:38










            • The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 15:50










            • @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:56













            • 17




              This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 11:19










            • @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:38










            • The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
              – Martin Bonner
              Nov 26 at 15:50










            • @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
              – anna v
              Nov 26 at 15:56








            17




            17




            This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
            – Martin Bonner
            Nov 26 at 11:19




            This is a fine explanation of what actually happens in the double slit experiment ... but that isn't what the OP asked about. They asked about the explanations shown in the text book if you imagine that electrons or photons are particles. Those explanations only show the particles going through a slit, and the OP doesn't understand why they don't show the particles hitting the barrier.
            – Martin Bonner
            Nov 26 at 11:19












            @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
            – anna v
            Nov 26 at 15:38




            @MartinBonner I have not seen such graphs, and if they exist they are misleading. I edited to make this clear.
            – anna v
            Nov 26 at 15:38












            The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
            – Martin Bonner
            Nov 26 at 15:50




            The diagrams are not misleading. When Young did his original experiment, the predominant theory of light was Newton's corpuscular theory. The diagrams accurately show what such a corpuscular theory would predict (exactly two bright patches, and the rest dark). The fact that this is not what is observed is what overturned the corpuscular theory. Example - second diagram on: people.vcu.edu/~djbromle/color-theory/lecture/6a.html
            – Martin Bonner
            Nov 26 at 15:50












            @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
            – anna v
            Nov 26 at 15:56





            @boner he is talking about electrons and present day double slit experiments, as far as I understand the question, not asking about the old light as particles, but present day physics.
            – anna v
            Nov 26 at 15:56


















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f443358%2fin-the-double-slit-experiment-why-is-it-never-shown-that-particles-may-hit-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown






            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?