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

The Stripe of Electron Diffraction in Magnetic Field—A Counterexample. In Electric Field, the Result Will Be the Same

Runsheng Tu

Published Feb 24, 2021• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract As long as no one has done diffraction experiment in the spark chamber (DESC) , it makes sense to do this experiment. This experiment has two possible results: (1) Diffraction fringes cannot be obtained; (2) Path information and diffraction patterns can be obtained at the same time. If the result is (1), it provides direct and unambiguous experimental evidence for the existing Copenhagen quantum mechanics interpretation system, which can avoid some unnecessary disputes; If the result is (2), it will cause a scientific revolution in the field of quantum mechanics interpretation (After all, most people now think that "as long as the particle path is observed in the double slit experiment, the interference fringes will disappear"). "The result of the electron diffraction experiment in a magnetic field—diffraction fringes can still be obtained" was discovered. This finding provides an experimental evidence for DESC to be meaningful and predicts that the experimental result of DESC is the result (2).

DOI
10.21203/rs.3.rs-228326/v1

Related papers

Electron Diffraction Experiment Disturbed by Magnetic Field

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics believes that as long as it is monitored, the diffraction fringes of electrons will disappear. There have been no scientific reports on the "electron diffraction experiment monitored by a magnetic field" for a long time (there are only popular science reports in this area). Now, the electron diffraction experiment disturbed by the permanent magnet has been completed. As a result, the interference of the magnetic field can deform and drift the electron diffraction fringes, but will not cause the diffraction fringes to disappear. It clearly shows that the interference of the measurement cannot make the wave-particle duality particles collapse into complete particles. This is an experimental counterexample in quantum mechanics (also a dark cloud over quantum mechanics). Both "the existence of the superposition of quantum states" and "the superposition of quantum states cannot withstand any observation and surveillance" are doubtful.

Journal of Educational & Psychological Research•Mar 30, 2022•0 citations

Electron Diffraction Experiment Disturbed by Magnetic Field

Runsheng Tu

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that as long as electron diffraction fringes are monitored, they will vanish. For a long time, no scientific papers have been published on the "electron diffraction experiment monitored by a magnetic field" (there are only popular science reports in this area). In order to verify the authenticity and inevitability of quantum state superposition and wave function collapse, electron diffraction experiments under the interference of permanent magnets were carried out. As a result, the electron diffraction fringes can be deformed and drifted by the magnetic field interference, but they will not vanish. It is apparent that measurement interference cannot cause wave-particle duality particles to collapse into whole particles. In quantum physics, this is an experimental counterexample (also a dark cloud over quantum mechanics). Both "the existence of the superposition of quantum states" and "the superposition of quantum states cannot withstand any observation and surveillance" are questionable.

Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International)•Mar 4, 2022•0 citations

A Unified Physical Mechanism of Electron Single-Slit and Double-Slit Diffraction Based on Electromagnetic Interaction and Particle Exchange at Slit Walls

Jiaqing Yan

The mainstream quantum mechanics uses “probability wave superposition and single-electron self-interference” to explain electron single-slit and double-slit diffraction. This theory deviates from the essential nature of real particle interactions and has fundamental logical flaws. The electron is a negatively charged real particle with a definite physical size and high-frequency transverse oscillation; a single real particle has no physical basis for self-interference. Abandoning the abstract probability wave hypothesis, this paper establishes a complete real-interaction model including electrostatic repulsion deflection, surface electron exchange, collision scattering, microscopic refraction, and barrier diffraction, based on the three-dimensional random transverse oscillation and charge repulsion of electrons. The model uniformly explains the real formation mechanism of electron single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference fringes. This paper proves that in single-electron sequential emission, each electron passes through only one slit; all bright and dark fringes are the statistical result of multiple microscopic interactions between electrons and slit walls or the central barrier. The disappearance of fringes under observation is caused by external disturbance to the inherent oscillation and wall-interaction equilibrium, not by wave function collapse. This paper further clarifies that whether an electron can pass through a slit is determined by its transverse oscillation amplitude, not by wavelength. Amplitude directly corresponds to slit width and is the core controlling variable of diffraction. Meanwhile, if no slit is placed, electrons flying directly to the screen produce no diffraction or interference fringes, proving that electrons themselves have no self-interference ability. Fringes are generated by slit structures, not by intrinsic wave interference of electrons. This study corrects the century-long misunderstanding of electron diffraction and establishes a new microscopic diffraction mechanism consistent with classical real-particle physics.

•May 30, 2026•0 citations

The Double Slit Experiment-Explained

Yousif ME

The wavelet envisioned by Huygen's in diffraction phenomenon is re-interpreted as being polarized after passing through slit/hole which removed the electric field component from the Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R), the remained wave consist of the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF), this CMF lost the speed of light and the electric field, hence it's a short distance travel field, originated from the CMF produced by accelerated electrons, integrated with the Electric Field (EF) during the Flip-Flop (F-F) mechanism producing EM-R; hence the passing of light through a single hole/slit resulted in a CMF which reproduced as rings on the monitor screen in single wave diffraction, while the interference of two such CMF in double slits experiment, produced constructive or destructive interference forming patches on the monitor screen; and the perceived electron diffraction is an enter of two CMF from a single electron into a slit then emerged to produce constructive or destructive interference, in addition to the electron which entered and emerged from the slit with the stronger CMF, the paper finally derived the origin of Planck 'constant (h) for the second time; the logical interpretation of double slits diffraction will restore the common sense in the physical world, distorted by the pilot wave.

Journal of Physical Mathematics•Jan 1, 2016•6 citations

Study on the diffraction-like and interference-like mechanisms of particle flow

Jiqing Zeng, Tianhe Zeng

Abstract The Young's double slit experiment and the electron double slit experiment are generally considered to prove the wave nature of light and electrons. The most obvious sign of the double-slit experiment is that there are bright and dark stripes on the screen. However, people have not carefully studied the causes of the light and dark stripes. Here, we demonstrates that the light and dark fringe in Young's double-slit experiment is not actually the diffraction and interference pattern of light wave, and tries to reveal the real reason for its formation. We have studied the scattering phenomenon of particle flow after passing through the gap, and found that the scattering type and scattering degree of freedom of particle flow are determined by the physical parameters of particles and the gap, and the uniform scattering of particle flow can form a "yes" and "no" discrete distribution pattern on the receiving screen. Based on the "diffraction like" and "interference like" mechanism of particle flow, this paper explains the electron diffraction and interference experiment, as well as the Young's double-slit interference experiment and the diffraction of light through circular holes and plates. This paper negates the wave-particle duality and the de Broglie material wave hypothesis, fundamentally shaking the foundation of modern quantum mechanics, and has great scientific significance.

•Mar 23, 2023•0 citations

Should We Interpret Quantum Mechanics According to Bohr

Shubhayan Sarkar

I present here a thought experiment which violates the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics “The Copenhagen Interpretation” and Bohr’s complementarity which says that there is no meaning of the state of a particle until it is observed and the act of observation might change it. The experiment consists of a double slit apparatus which is modified by putting a second double slit apparatus between the source and the original apparatus with certain conditions imposed on both the apparatuses using the facts of interference and diffraction. A striking paradox emerges if we consider the arguments of Bohr’s complementarity, i.e. the photon travels through both the paths simultaneously in a double slit apparatus whenever there is interference. It turns out that this paradox can be resolved only if the photon travels through one path even if interference fringes are visible.

•Mar 1, 2017•0 citations
Abstract As long as no one has done diffraction experiment in the spark chamber (DESC) , it makes sense to do this experiment. This experiment has two possible results: (1) Diffraction fringes cannot be obtained; (2) Path information and diffraction patterns can be obtained at the same time. If the result is (1), it provides direct and unambiguous experimental evidence for the existing Copenhagen quantum mechanics interpretation system, which can avoid some unnecessary disputes; If the result is (2), it will cause a scientific revolution in the field of quantum mechanics interpretation (After all, most people now think that "as long as the particle path is observed in the double slit experiment, the interference fringes will disappear"). "The result of the electron diffraction experiment in a magnetic field—diffraction fringes can still be obtained" was discovered. This finding provides an experimental evidence for DESC to be meaningful and predicts that the experimental result of DESC is the result (2).
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics believes that as long as it is monitored, the diffraction fringes of electrons will disappear. There have been no scientific reports on the "electron diffraction experiment monitored by a magnetic field" for a long time (there are only popular science reports in this area). Now, the electron diffraction experiment disturbed by the permanent magnet has been completed. As a result, the interference of the magnetic field can deform and drift the electron diffraction fringes, but will not cause the diffraction fringes to disappear. It clearly shows that the interference of the measurement cannot make the wave-particle duality particles collapse into complete particles. This is an experimental counterexample in quantum mechanics (also a dark cloud over quantum mechanics). Both "the existence of the superposition of quantum states" and "the superposition of quantum states cannot withstand any observation and surveillance" are doubtful.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that as long as electron diffraction fringes are monitored, they will vanish. For a long time, no scientific papers have been published on the "electron diffraction experiment monitored by a magnetic field" (there are only popular science reports in this area). In order to verify the authenticity and inevitability of quantum state superposition and wave function collapse, electron diffraction experiments under the interference of permanent magnets were carried out. As a result, the electron diffraction fringes can be deformed and drifted by the magnetic field interference, but they will not vanish. It is apparent that measurement interference cannot cause wave-particle duality particles to collapse into whole particles. In quantum physics, this is an experimental counterexample (also a dark cloud over quantum mechanics). Both "the existence of the superposition of quantum states" and "the superposition of quantum states cannot withstand any observation and surveillance" are questionable.
The mainstream quantum mechanics uses “probability wave superposition and single-electron self-interference” to explain electron single-slit and double-slit diffraction. This theory deviates from the essential nature of real particle interactions and has fundamental logical flaws. The electron is a negatively charged real particle with a definite physical size and high-frequency transverse oscillation; a single real particle has no physical basis for self-interference. Abandoning the abstract probability wave hypothesis, this paper establishes a complete real-interaction model including electrostatic repulsion deflection, surface electron exchange, collision scattering, microscopic refraction, and barrier diffraction, based on the three-dimensional random transverse oscillation and charge repulsion of electrons. The model uniformly explains the real formation mechanism of electron single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference fringes. This paper proves that in single-electron sequential emission, each electron passes through only one slit; all bright and dark fringes are the statistical result of multiple microscopic interactions between electrons and slit walls or the central barrier. The disappearance of fringes under observation is caused by external disturbance to the inherent oscillation and wall-interaction equilibrium, not by wave function collapse. This paper further clarifies that whether an electron can pass through a slit is determined by its transverse oscillation amplitude, not by wavelength. Amplitude directly corresponds to slit width and is the core controlling variable of diffraction. Meanwhile, if no slit is placed, electrons flying directly to the screen produce no diffraction or interference fringes, proving that electrons themselves have no self-interference ability. Fringes are generated by slit structures, not by intrinsic wave interference of electrons. This study corrects the century-long misunderstanding of electron diffraction and establishes a new microscopic diffraction mechanism consistent with classical real-particle physics.
The wavelet envisioned by Huygen's in diffraction phenomenon is re-interpreted as being polarized after passing through slit/hole which removed the electric field component from the Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R), the remained wave consist of the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF), this CMF lost the speed of light and the electric field, hence it's a short distance travel field, originated from the CMF produced by accelerated electrons, integrated with the Electric Field (EF) during the Flip-Flop (F-F) mechanism producing EM-R; hence the passing of light through a single hole/slit resulted in a CMF which reproduced as rings on the monitor screen in single wave diffraction, while the interference of two such CMF in double slits experiment, produced constructive or destructive interference forming patches on the monitor screen; and the perceived electron diffraction is an enter of two CMF from a single electron into a slit then emerged to produce constructive or destructive interference, in addition to the electron which entered and emerged from the slit with the stronger CMF, the paper finally derived the origin of Planck 'constant (h) for the second time; the logical interpretation of double slits diffraction will restore the common sense in the physical world, distorted by the pilot wave.
Abstract The Young's double slit experiment and the electron double slit experiment are generally considered to prove the wave nature of light and electrons. The most obvious sign of the double-slit experiment is that there are bright and dark stripes on the screen. However, people have not carefully studied the causes of the light and dark stripes. Here, we demonstrates that the light and dark fringe in Young's double-slit experiment is not actually the diffraction and interference pattern of light wave, and tries to reveal the real reason for its formation. We have studied the scattering phenomenon of particle flow after passing through the gap, and found that the scattering type and scattering degree of freedom of particle flow are determined by the physical parameters of particles and the gap, and the uniform scattering of particle flow can form a "yes" and "no" discrete distribution pattern on the receiving screen. Based on the "diffraction like" and "interference like" mechanism of particle flow, this paper explains the electron diffraction and interference experiment, as well as the Young's double-slit interference experiment and the diffraction of light through circular holes and plates. This paper negates the wave-particle duality and the de Broglie material wave hypothesis, fundamentally shaking the foundation of modern quantum mechanics, and has great scientific significance.
I present here a thought experiment which violates the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics “The Copenhagen Interpretation” and Bohr’s complementarity which says that there is no meaning of the state of a particle until it is observed and the act of observation might change it. The experiment consists of a double slit apparatus which is modified by putting a second double slit apparatus between the source and the original apparatus with certain conditions imposed on both the apparatuses using the facts of interference and diffraction. A striking paradox emerges if we consider the arguments of Bohr’s complementarity, i.e. the photon travels through both the paths simultaneously in a double slit apparatus whenever there is interference. It turns out that this paradox can be resolved only if the photon travels through one path even if interference fringes are visible.