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

Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International)

Electron Diffraction Experiment Disturbed by Magnetic Field

Runsheng Tu

Published Mar 4, 2022• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.9734/bpi/rtcps/v8/2592c

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

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

Runsheng Tu

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).

•Feb 24, 2021•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

New Mechanism of Aharonov Bohm Effect

Jiaqing Yan

The traditional Aharonov Bohm effect (AB effect) attributes the light and dark fringes on screen to phase interference of electron matter wave. It presumes that the magnetic field outside the solenoid equals zero and particles receive no force. This system has long served as key support for wave particle duality. This paper completely abandons the hypothesis of wave interference and quantum phase. It establishes the model of electron vibrating point particle to reveal the real physical mechanism of AB effect. Fringes are not superposition product of waves. They are formed by differential deflection of charged electrons under magnetic force and Coulomb repulsion, followed by regular superposition of two upper and lower particle beams. Both magnetic force and Coulomb repulsion are long range forces. They only differ in effective action range and variation rule of force with distance. Comparative experiments using direct current solenoid and direct current long straight wire can falsify the unrealistic assumption that magnetic field outside coil cancels out to zero. Supporting single side shielding verification experiment can directly test the correctness of orthodox quantum interpretation. Electrons have no wave property. As long as point particles with inherent vibration are modulated by field, they can form fringe similar to interference fringe. Photons are also point particles with inherent vibration. When photons pass through slits, they interact with slit wall and produce deflection, so as to form photon diffraction and interference fringes. The hypothesis of wave particle duality is invalid.

•Oct 2, 2026•0 citations

If the wave function collapse absolutely in the interaction, how can the weird nature of particles are born in the interaction? �A discussion on quantum entanglement experiments

Runsheng Tu

Objectives: Particles can re-exhibit volatility after their wave function (or wave packet) collapses (proven by experiments such as secondary electron diffraction experiments). Is the volatility recovered or does the collapse process not destroy the volatility or is the collapse process not there at all? After the wave function (or wave packet) of a particle collapses, the superposition state should not exist. Methods: If the wave function can be collapsed by measurement and the quantum characteristics cannot be recovered after the collapse, then the microscopic particles that reach the free motion state through interaction can no longer have the quantum characteristics of quantum parallelism, Quantum Entanglement (QEM) or quantum state superposition. Findings: Restricted by the conditions in this conditional adverbial clause, logically, it is impossible to find Quantum Entanglement State (QEMS) by experiment (recognizing that the quantum superposition state is a non-real state, it is recognized that the state is unobservable). Under the assumption that entangled states (or superposition states) exist and that measurement can destroy entangled states, the related experimental phenomena are interpreted as QEMS. Application: This is clearly a logical cycle. Experiments show that the non-projective measurement cannot eliminate the diffraction effect of electron rays. Keywords: Logical Cycle, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Non-Locality, Wave Function Collapse

Indian Journal of Science and Technology•Feb 1, 2019•4 citations

On the presentation of wave phenomena of electrons with the Young–Feynman experiment

Gioṙgio Matteucci

The Young-Feynman two-hole interferometer is widely used to present the electron wave-particle duality and in particular the buildup of interference fringes with single electrons. The teaching approach consists of two steps: i) electrons come through only one hole but diffraction effects are disregarded; ii) electrons come through both holes and interference fringes are described. Therefore, a student might believe that wave phenomena are not revealable in case i) but they arise only by the combined effect of electrons from the two holes. To avoid misunderstanding regarding the distribution of electrons passing through one hole, Fresnel and Fraunhofer diffraction patterns are discussed. In particular, an original experiment, realized with a standard electron microscope and a sample with round holes is presented to introduce the wave nature of electrons. The experimental results clearly show that a careful discussion of electron diffraction phenomena from one hole provides students with the evidence that the interference experiment from both holes is not strictly required to show the superposition of electron waves.

European Journal of Physics•Mar 23, 2011•6 citations
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 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.
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 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 traditional Aharonov Bohm effect (AB effect) attributes the light and dark fringes on screen to phase interference of electron matter wave. It presumes that the magnetic field outside the solenoid equals zero and particles receive no force. This system has long served as key support for wave particle duality. This paper completely abandons the hypothesis of wave interference and quantum phase. It establishes the model of electron vibrating point particle to reveal the real physical mechanism of AB effect. Fringes are not superposition product of waves. They are formed by differential deflection of charged electrons under magnetic force and Coulomb repulsion, followed by regular superposition of two upper and lower particle beams. Both magnetic force and Coulomb repulsion are long range forces. They only differ in effective action range and variation rule of force with distance. Comparative experiments using direct current solenoid and direct current long straight wire can falsify the unrealistic assumption that magnetic field outside coil cancels out to zero. Supporting single side shielding verification experiment can directly test the correctness of orthodox quantum interpretation. Electrons have no wave property. As long as point particles with inherent vibration are modulated by field, they can form fringe similar to interference fringe. Photons are also point particles with inherent vibration. When photons pass through slits, they interact with slit wall and produce deflection, so as to form photon diffraction and interference fringes. The hypothesis of wave particle duality is invalid.
Objectives: Particles can re-exhibit volatility after their wave function (or wave packet) collapses (proven by experiments such as secondary electron diffraction experiments). Is the volatility recovered or does the collapse process not destroy the volatility or is the collapse process not there at all? After the wave function (or wave packet) of a particle collapses, the superposition state should not exist. Methods: If the wave function can be collapsed by measurement and the quantum characteristics cannot be recovered after the collapse, then the microscopic particles that reach the free motion state through interaction can no longer have the quantum characteristics of quantum parallelism, Quantum Entanglement (QEM) or quantum state superposition. Findings: Restricted by the conditions in this conditional adverbial clause, logically, it is impossible to find Quantum Entanglement State (QEMS) by experiment (recognizing that the quantum superposition state is a non-real state, it is recognized that the state is unobservable). Under the assumption that entangled states (or superposition states) exist and that measurement can destroy entangled states, the related experimental phenomena are interpreted as QEMS. Application: This is clearly a logical cycle. Experiments show that the non-projective measurement cannot eliminate the diffraction effect of electron rays. Keywords: Logical Cycle, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Non-Locality, Wave Function Collapse
The Young-Feynman two-hole interferometer is widely used to present the electron wave-particle duality and in particular the buildup of interference fringes with single electrons. The teaching approach consists of two steps: i) electrons come through only one hole but diffraction effects are disregarded; ii) electrons come through both holes and interference fringes are described. Therefore, a student might believe that wave phenomena are not revealable in case i) but they arise only by the combined effect of electrons from the two holes. To avoid misunderstanding regarding the distribution of electrons passing through one hole, Fresnel and Fraunhofer diffraction patterns are discussed. In particular, an original experiment, realized with a standard electron microscope and a sample with round holes is presented to introduce the wave nature of electrons. The experimental results clearly show that a careful discussion of electron diffraction phenomena from one hole provides students with the evidence that the interference experiment from both holes is not strictly required to show the superposition of electron waves.