Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Lettere al nuovo cimento della societa italiana di fisica/Lettere al nuovo cimento

Electron interference: Landé’s approach upset by a recent elegant experiment

R. Rosa

Published Apr 1, 1979• 2 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf02725734

Related papers

Visibility parameters in Young's interference experiment with unpolarized light

Philippe Réfrégier, Antoine Roueff, Jani Tervo

We analyze the recently introduced Polarization contrast parameters and their relation to degrees of coherence in electromagnetic Young's interference experiment in the case of unpolarized illumination. We show that in the general case only two of the parameters can be made non-vanishing if suitable unitary transformations are applied to the field at pinholes. The result implies elegant relations between the contrast parameters and the intrinsic degrees of coherence in the case of unpolarized light at pinholes.

•Oct 1, 2007•0 citations

Electron Interference Experiments

J. Arol Simpson

Reviews of Modern Physics•Jul 1, 1956•16 citations

Theory of Electron Interference Experiments

Деннис Габор

Reviews of Modern Physics•Jul 1, 1956•51 citations

Scientific Proof of God Based on Quantum Phenomena - Wave Particle Duality as an Overwhelming Evidence of Direct Divine Intervention !

Henok Tadesse

From a new insight about the internal structure and dynamics of quantum particles such as photons andelectrons, a conclusion has been reached that the exact point on the detector screen of a double-slit experimentwhere a photon will land is completely predetermined by fine tuning the initial conditions of the photon andthe electron during emission. This means that where exactly a photon lands on the detecting screen iscompletely predetermined by its initial conditions, just as where exactly a ball lands on the ground ispredetermined by its initial conditions. This means that an interference pattern or any arbitrary pattern could beformed on the detector screen by (almost) infinitely fine-tuning the initial conditions of the photon duringemission, regardless of whether one or both slits are open, regardless of the distance between the slits,regardless of the distance of the detecting screen. In principle, a mechanical version of particle interferencepatterns can be created by repeatedly kicking a ball towards a hole („slit‟ ) in a wall, with a „detector‟ wall atsome arbitrary distance from the hole(s). This would require almost „infinite‟ fine tuning of the initialconditions of the ball, that is initial velocity, initial direction and other parameters. The interference patternoccurred just because of infinite fine tuning of the initial conditions of the ball and not because the ball„interfered‟ with itself. We just made a successful simulation, and created the pattern as if the ball interfered with itself. A supernatural football player can create an „interference‟ pattern on the net by accuratelydeflecting the ball from either pole. The interference pattern in the photon and electron double-slit experiment is fundamentally the same. The conclusion is that aiming a photon to a particular atom on the screen requires(almost) infinite fine-tuning during emission. This raises the burning question: WHO fine-tunes the photonsduring emission so that they form an interference pattern or a Gaussian pattern? The emitting atom? The light source conspiring with the detecting screen? Atoms have infinitely small intelligence as to do the infinitelycomplex task of fine-tuning a photon. The conclusion is that a super natural being is fine-tuning and, literally,aiming each and every photon emitted not only from the light source of a double slit experiment, but also allphotons emitted from all light sources in the universe. The overwhelming evidence of divine intervention isthat photons and electrons cannot by themselves behave both as waves and as particles simultaneously.LITERALLY, God has been behind all confusing light speed experiments and observations made overcenturies. It has been discovered that the correct model of the speed of light is a novel, seamless fusion of ethertheory and emission theory ( Apparent Source Theory ). Photons cannot by themselves exhibit this dual nature.Literally, all dualities observed so far in light, electromagnetism and gravity are possible ONLY by DIRECT divine intervention.

•Jun 27, 2022•2 citations

Taking quantisation seriously: a farewell to waves

Geoff Beck

The dual wave-particle nature of quantum objects is a notoriously unintuitive feature of quantum theories. However, it is often deemed essential, due to quantum objects exhibiting diffraction and interference. We extend the work of Landé and Lévy-Leblond to demonstrate that de Broglie wavelengths are not relativistically covariant as simultaneous spatial structures, making wave properties an unviable explanation of apparent interference. We then explore whether modern experiments vindicate an alternative view: that apparent waviness in diffraction and interference scenarios emerges as a consequence of quantised interactions between particles. Such a view has historically received very little attention, despite being the exact modern explanation of both the Kapitza-Dirac effect and ultrafast electron diffraction. We then study a photon orbital angular momentum realisation of the double slit to show that quantised exchanges can mimic interference. Finally, we demonstrate that the quantum formalism demands that particle momentum is determined at the point of scattering, contravening wave-based explanations of quantum interference.

arXiv:2503.14533•Mar 17, 2025•0 citations

Quantum interference in electron collision

R.C. Liu, Brian Odom, Y. Yamamoto +1 more

Nature•Jan 1, 1998•249 citations
We analyze the recently introduced Polarization contrast parameters and their relation to degrees of coherence in electromagnetic Young's interference experiment in the case of unpolarized illumination. We show that in the general case only two of the parameters can be made non-vanishing if suitable unitary transformations are applied to the field at pinholes. The result implies elegant relations between the contrast parameters and the intrinsic degrees of coherence in the case of unpolarized light at pinholes.
From a new insight about the internal structure and dynamics of quantum particles such as photons andelectrons, a conclusion has been reached that the exact point on the detector screen of a double-slit experimentwhere a photon will land is completely predetermined by fine tuning the initial conditions of the photon andthe electron during emission. This means that where exactly a photon lands on the detecting screen iscompletely predetermined by its initial conditions, just as where exactly a ball lands on the ground ispredetermined by its initial conditions. This means that an interference pattern or any arbitrary pattern could beformed on the detector screen by (almost) infinitely fine-tuning the initial conditions of the photon duringemission, regardless of whether one or both slits are open, regardless of the distance between the slits,regardless of the distance of the detecting screen. In principle, a mechanical version of particle interferencepatterns can be created by repeatedly kicking a ball towards a hole („slit‟ ) in a wall, with a „detector‟ wall atsome arbitrary distance from the hole(s). This would require almost „infinite‟ fine tuning of the initialconditions of the ball, that is initial velocity, initial direction and other parameters. The interference patternoccurred just because of infinite fine tuning of the initial conditions of the ball and not because the ball„interfered‟ with itself. We just made a successful simulation, and created the pattern as if the ball interfered with itself. A supernatural football player can create an „interference‟ pattern on the net by accuratelydeflecting the ball from either pole. The interference pattern in the photon and electron double-slit experiment is fundamentally the same. The conclusion is that aiming a photon to a particular atom on the screen requires(almost) infinite fine-tuning during emission. This raises the burning question: WHO fine-tunes the photonsduring emission so that they form an interference pattern or a Gaussian pattern? The emitting atom? The light source conspiring with the detecting screen? Atoms have infinitely small intelligence as to do the infinitelycomplex task of fine-tuning a photon. The conclusion is that a super natural being is fine-tuning and, literally,aiming each and every photon emitted not only from the light source of a double slit experiment, but also allphotons emitted from all light sources in the universe. The overwhelming evidence of divine intervention isthat photons and electrons cannot by themselves behave both as waves and as particles simultaneously.LITERALLY, God has been behind all confusing light speed experiments and observations made overcenturies. It has been discovered that the correct model of the speed of light is a novel, seamless fusion of ethertheory and emission theory ( Apparent Source Theory ). Photons cannot by themselves exhibit this dual nature.Literally, all dualities observed so far in light, electromagnetism and gravity are possible ONLY by DIRECT divine intervention.
The dual wave-particle nature of quantum objects is a notoriously unintuitive feature of quantum theories. However, it is often deemed essential, due to quantum objects exhibiting diffraction and interference. We extend the work of Landé and Lévy-Leblond to demonstrate that de Broglie wavelengths are not relativistically covariant as simultaneous spatial structures, making wave properties an unviable explanation of apparent interference. We then explore whether modern experiments vindicate an alternative view: that apparent waviness in diffraction and interference scenarios emerges as a consequence of quantised interactions between particles. Such a view has historically received very little attention, despite being the exact modern explanation of both the Kapitza-Dirac effect and ultrafast electron diffraction. We then study a photon orbital angular momentum realisation of the double slit to show that quantised exchanges can mimic interference. Finally, we demonstrate that the quantum formalism demands that particle momentum is determined at the point of scattering, contravening wave-based explanations of quantum interference.