Abstract Basic explanations of the double slit diffraction phenomenon include a description of waves that emanate from two slits and interfere. The locations of the interference minima and maxima are determined by the phase difference of the waves. An optical wave, which has a wavelength and propagates a distance accumulates a phase of A matter wave, also having wavelength that propagates the same distance accumulates a phase of which is a factor of two different from the optical case. Nevertheless, in most situations, the phase difference, for interfering matter waves that propagate distances that differ by is approximately which is the same value computed in the optical case. The difference between the matter and optical case hinders conceptual explanations of diffraction from two slits based on the matter–optics analogy. In the following article we provide a path integral description for matter waves with a focus on conceptual explanation. A thought experiment is provided to illustrate the validity range of the approximation .
Abstract Basic explanations of the double slit diffraction phenomenon include a description of waves that emanate from two slits and interfere. The locations of the interference minima and maxima are determined by the phase difference of the waves. An optical wave, which has a wavelength and propagates a distance accumulates a phase of A matter wave, also having wavelength that propagates the same distance accumulates a phase of which is a factor of two different from the optical case. Nevertheless, in most situations, the phase difference, for interfering matter waves that propagate distances that differ by is approximately which is the same value computed in the optical case. The difference between the matter and optical case hinders conceptual explanations of diffraction from two slits based on the matter–optics analogy. In the following article we provide a path integral description for matter waves with a focus on conceptual explanation. A thought experiment is provided to illustrate the validity range of the approximation .
Interference and diffraction of light are the nature performance of wave character,which is the result of superposition of waves.The essential difference between interference and diffraction phenomena is that interference comes from the superposition by the two or limited interfering beams of light,and diffraction is from the superposition by an infinite beam.From the perspective of optical path difference,corresponding to the same optical path difference,the minimum conditions of single-slit diffraction becomes the maxima conditions of double-slit interference.The reason is that the slot width is so small that can be considered as a single light source under the double-slit case,and the interference in the same slit can be ignored;while the single-slit diffraction minimum conditions are exactly correspond to the interference in the same slit.
Abstract A simplified explanation of near-field and far-field diffraction with matter-wave is described using the path integral formulation. Our approach is demonstrated with cold Rb atoms in single-, double-, and multiple-slit configurations. With the use of an initial wave for the particle beam that corresponds to the slit opening and the number of slits, the transition from near-field to far-field diffraction can also be explored. Identifying the boundary between near-field and far-field diffraction is the first priority for implementing matter-wave diffraction experiments.
The double-slit experiment has stood for a century as the paradigmatic demonstration of quantum superposition: the standard interpretation holds that a particle passes through both slits simultaneously, existing in a superposition of two spatially separated states. This paper proposes a physically distinct alternative: the particle's matter wave — a real physical wave propagating through space in accordance with de Broglie's relation λ = h/p — passes through both slits, while the particle itself (matter) remains in an undetermined state until a constructive interference maximum is formed at the detection screen. The particle does not simultaneously occupy two locations; the wave does. This distinction eliminates the need for superposition as an ontological commitment while fully reproducing the observed interference pattern. We further show that the disappearance of the interference pattern upon which-path measurement is explained without invoking wavefunction collapse: the measurement interaction redirects the matter wave to a single-slit geometry, eliminating the two-wave interference condition. Three experimentally testable predictions distinguish this framework from the standard interpretation: (1) weak-measurement trajectory reconstruction should reveal single particle paths inconsistent with simultaneous two-slit passage; (2) diffraction fringe spacing should depend on the mass density of the slit material, because denser slit edges generate a steeper refractive-index gradient for the matter wave; (3) the fringe pattern should exhibit a density-dependent phase shift measurable with current matter-wave interferometry technology. This reinterpretation requires no new mathematical formalism — the Schrödinger equation and Born's rule are retained — but replaces the ontological claim of simultaneous multi-location existence with the physically consistent picture of matter-wave propagation through an undetermined-state particle.
Abstract In this paper propagation of matter wave of particles is modeled using the Fourier optics approach. In first step the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics is used to find the wave function of the particle. In the second step Fourier optics is employed to model the diffraction of the wave function of the particle through single and double slits. The results of the calculations are presented as graphs of diffraction patterns. The results of the presented method are compared to the existing results in the literature (with different methods) to check the validity of the introduced model. It is shown that the Fourier optics approach is applicable to matter wave of particles in diffraction through slits.
Classical physics identified matter with particles and radiation with waves. Although these descriptions accounted for a large number of very important facts, it became apparent at the beginning of the twentieth century that other phenomena, such as blackbody radiation and photoelectric effect, are satisfactorily explained only if radiation is described in terms of particles. Louis de Broglie developed a theory according to which, conversely, matter has wave properties. As an outcome of this theory, he was able to write down a formula relating the corresponding wavelength with the momentum of the particle. Diffraction patterns characterize waves, and the basic fact that corroborated the validity of the notion of matter waves was that the Davisson and Germer experiment proved electrons can be diffracted. In classical optics the simplest experiment displaying this phenomenon is the well-known Young two-slit experiment, in which a beam of light is passed through a diaphragm with two slits.
Abstract Since they were born before physical achievements in question, light and matter waves, which have almost no physical properties, are abstract purely mathematical concepts rather than objects. The result of the double-slit test, a series of dark and bright streaks, was determined to be caused by interfering light waves. However, this plausible principle does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and it is not difficult to find many flaws in the conclusion upon further study. For example, (1) the principle of generating multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found in the mathematical model. (2) In the mathematical model, the location where the dark stripe should appear most is actually the spot with the highest brightness. (3) Since the quantum property must be expressed in the process of interference, interference will not be triggered if all conditions are not met at the same time, and therefore, the principle of interference will be rejected. (4) Since the light comes from the radiation of the electron transition, it is impossible to generate a light source in a slit that may be a vacuum. (5) Interfering light waves can be subdivided into multiple parts and proliferate greatly. (6) A headless wave of light left outside the screen after the head disappears can still induce much interference. (7) There is no interference effect caused by reflected light waves. (8) The effect of polarization direction on interference is neglected, and the interference condition is incomplete. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photon that has collapsed into a particle should be tested again with a double slit test. (10) Whether the phenomenon of "observation determines outcome" is tampered with by observation. (11) When the phase is shifted π or the signal is reversed, waves become negative waves capable of annihilating themselves, which is typical of antimatter. In this case, matter and antimatter are conjoined. (12) If the general law of waves is followed, not only the targeted light wave passes through the slit. (13) The original version of the double-slit test cannot be reproduced, and the test results are different from those presented by contemporary technology. (14) Waves must obey Fourier's principle, but light waves, quantum waves and matter waves do not. (15) The modulation effect that waves must produce is not present in optical fiber communication. (16) If the light from different slits must interfere with each other, a mask full of slits will cause the lithographer to fail. (17) Since the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is only a sampling of the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not presented. (18) The fact that the two stars orbiting each other do not change color only proves that the phenomenon of redshift is impossible but does not support the inference that the speed of light is constant. (19) The Michelson-Morley test process is not open and transparent enough, and pinhole diffraction and mechanical processing using broken lines instead of curves cannot be ruled out. In conclusion, Newton's particle model was wrong, but neither was the light wave theory.