Physics World

Alice through the double slits

G G Davies

Published Feb 1, 2010• 0 citations

Abstract

Alice thought that she had simply followed the White Rabbit through one of the two slit-like holes, but felt strangely disturbed about whether she had really gone through just one hole, or had somehow passed through both holes simultaneously. The Rabbit, who was eating a turnip, was looking her over. You must be one of those funny-looking things that thinks they know everything, he said. What are you? A lumpy wave or a wavy lump? don't feel like either, said Alice, so I must be something entirely different. The Rabbit snorted. Well, at least you know that, he said. You might even be ready to learn more.

DOI: 10.1088/2058-7058/23/02/48

Related papers

Advanced further problems of natural philosophy

Martin Cohen

If we turn down our light source from 100 million whatever photons a second to, say, just ten a second, we see the problem, if not the screen, very clearly. These last few photons of light head off, one by one, for the screen, some of them hitting the piece of card but the odd one going through a slit. Now, according to common sense, each should be able to land on the screen unaffected by whether the other slit is there-or not. But none of them, no matter how long we wait, will try to land on the dark areas seen in the interference pattern with lots of light. After all, if an individual photon could behave in this way, it might take a long time but, eventually, the screen would record a picture more like the one-slit experiment with the light diffusing evenly, than the interference one. And the individual photons recognise the contradiction. They continue to behave individually as ‘waves’ all on their own. Points where the light particle could go when just one slit is open become unavailable when the other slit is open. (Incidentally, the same thing, scientists have observed, will happen with any small particle-electrons, whole atoms or even molecules will do just as well.) In experiments, the individual particles of light seem to know about the other slit on the piece of card, indeed what is going on elsewhere in the universe. For, in principle at least, the distance between the slits can be any size, and the same interference effect will apply. (Although if the slits were even a metre apart, the screen might need to be on the moon before the deflected light begins to converge.) Suppose we asked our neighbour if we could borrow their particle detector to check whether the light energy is still travelling in ‘whole photons’, rather than splitting into two and going through both slits and thereby getting in and out of phase with each other. We would find, indeed, that it was still travelling as a whole photon, and that this attempted explanation does not fit with observation. But we would find something else too. The mere act of putting the particle detector next to one slit causes the wavy pattern, the ‘interference’ effect, to disappear!

Routledge eBooksNov 1, 20020 citations

Double Slit Experiment

Jac L. Williams

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, and I am paraphrasing (once you remove all that's false, whatever remains has to be the truth. No matter how strange or ridiculous it may seem). I am going to assume that a photon will turn into a wave just because it goes through a double slit in a piece of paper is a false statement. I will then demonstrate that whatever is left can explain the four bars of light that form when light travels through the double slit.

Feb 1, 20173 citations

Time to Stop Believing in Fairytales: A Possible Solution to Quantum Mechanics Most Daring Problem, the Doubleslit Experiment

Uroš Šinigoj

I come from a medical background. I haven't seriously studied physics since high school but I like to observe things and I like the mysteries of quantum mechanics. Solving mysteries is one of the most important approaches to the development of humanity. With that said I would like to propose here where to look for solutions for one of the most important mysteries of quantum mechanics. The double-slit experiment.

Jan 1, 20200 citations

Duality or Unity in Quantum Mechanics

Jonathan Deutsch

In the double slit experiment - - central to quantum mechanics and thus to all of reality - - when you LOOK at the particle, it always passes through ONLY ONE slit - - EITHER the right slit OR the left slit, acting like a particle. However, when you AREN’T looking at it, it somehow always passes through BOTH slits - - the right slit AND the left slit - - at the same time, acting like a wave. All of nature is now KNOWN to be both wave and particle simultaneously - - actually, one entity (“wavicle”), not two - - at the most fundamental level of reality. However, no one seems to have ever asked the question: How can anything, much less everything, be in TW0 places at the same time AND ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY be in ONLY ONE place at the same time? The known laws of physics make this absolutely impossible. Therefore, at least one of our laws must be wrong. In some fundamental mathematical and physical sense, 2 MUST ALSO BE (- - EQUAL- -) 1: 2 AS 1. The right and left slits, seemingly opposite, must at the deepest level of reality be “married” to each other - - one slit, not two. Extending this argument to Schrodinger’s cat, life and death, seemingly opposite, must at the deepest level of reality be “married” to each other, 2 AS 1. Just as all apparent opposites, it must be true that ultimately, life and death must be one thing, not two. This, then, is an all-optimistic physics - - probably the first such theory ever. But it is based entirely on firm scientific fact.

Aug 1, 20200 citations

Observing The Observer

Vlatko Vedral

I present a simple variant of the Schrödinger cat meets Wigner's friend thought experiment. If you are shocked by it, you have not understood quantum physics (no words are missing from this sentence).

arXiv:1603.04583Mar 15, 20165 citations

Ask me anything

Scott Aaronson

To remind you, this book is based on a course I taught in 2006. On the last day of class, I followed the great tradition pioneered by Richard Feynman, in which the last class should be one where you can ask the teacher anything. Feynman's rule was that you could ask about anything except politics, religion, or the final exam. In my case, there was no final exam, and I didn't even make politics or religion off-limits. This chapter collects some of the questions people asked me, together with my responses. Student: Do you often think about using computer science to limit or give us a hint about physical theories? Do you think that we'll be able to discover physical theories which give more powerful models than quantum computation? Scott: Is BQP the end of the road, or is there more to be found? That's a fantastic question, and I wish more people would think about it. I’m being a bit of a politician here and not answering directly, because obviously the answer is “I don't know.” I guess the whole idea with science is that if we don't know the answer, we don't try to sprout one out of our butt or something. We try to base our answers on something. So, everything we know is consistent with the idea that quantum computing is the end of the road. Greg Kuperberg had an analogy I really liked. He said that there are people who keep saying that we've gone from classical to quantum mechanics so what other surprises are in store? But maybe that's like first assuming the Earth is flat, and then on discovering that it's round, saying who knows, maybe it has the topology of a Klein bottle. There's a surprise in a given direction, but once you've assimilated it, there may not be any further surprise in that same direction.

Cambridge University Press eBooksMar 14, 20135 citations