Abstract One of the greatest mysteries that has puzzled and seemingly hoodwinked our very understanding of nature is the single electron double slit experiment – one that Feynman termed the central mystery of quantum mechanics. At the heart of this mystery is how can an electron that is a physical particle exhibit a wave-like property? We’ve proposed a non-counterintuitive way to explain this phenomenon called the randomly-jumping electron hypothesis, in which the electron randomly “jumps” in discrete succession to specific points only and not others which is what causes the electron to indeed be a classical particle only but is able to produce a wave-like interference pattern. To provide supporting evidence for our hypothesis, we’ve developed a computer program to simulate the single electron double slit experiment by treating the electron as a classical particle while still exhibiting wave-like fringes in agreement with real-world observed data of the single electron double slit experiment performed. Our interpretation does not set out to “solve” the mystery of why an electron can produce a wave-like interference pattern once and for all, however our hypothesis is a monism ontological interpretation that does address some of the crucial debates that have remained unsolved for 100 years since the formulation of quantum mechanics.
Abstract One of the greatest mysteries that has puzzled and seemingly hoodwinked our very understanding of nature is the single electron double slit experiment – one that Feynman termed the central mystery of quantum mechanics. At the heart of this mystery is how can an electron that is a physical particle exhibit a wave-like property? We’ve proposed a non-counterintuitive way to explain this phenomenon called the randomly-jumping electron hypothesis, in which the electron randomly “jumps” in discrete succession to specific points only and not others which is what causes the electron to indeed be a classical particle only but is able to produce a wave-like interference pattern. To provide supporting evidence for our hypothesis, we’ve developed a computer program to simulate the single electron double slit experiment by treating the electron as a classical particle while still exhibiting wave-like fringes in agreement with real-world observed data of the single electron double slit experiment performed. Our interpretation does not set out to “solve” the mystery of why an electron can produce a wave-like interference pattern once and for all, however our hypothesis is a monism ontological interpretation that does address some of the crucial debates that have remained unsolved for 100 years since the formulation of quantum mechanics.
Abstract Double-slit experiments have provided evidence that particles, such as electrons, have wave-like properties. This inference stems from the wave-like interference pattern particles produce after passing through double-slits in a barrier. Understanding why particles have this property has stimulated research into many compelling theories. However, a consensus remains elusive and inconsistencies with gravity and other phenomenon are major challenges of these ideas. A hypothesis, suggested here, is that the propagation of virtual particles (a particle and anti-particle pair that only remain in existence for a brief moment) is the cause of the interference patterns in the double-slit experiment. In this hypothesis, virtual particles are continuously produced at the edge of a particle. Virtual particles continue to propagate other virtual particle pairs further away before they collapse. The double-slits cause ripples in the propagating (and back-propagating) virtual particles, which generates the interference pattern of the observed particles. This explanation assumes that particles are influenced by direct contact with virtual particles rather than fields or wave-properties of the particle. An included simulation of this hypothesis suggests that interference patterns could be a consequence of propagating virtual particles.
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 classical interpretation of Young’s double slit experiment is that, before and after passing through the diaphragm of the double slit, the light behaves as waves. Feynman called the double slit experiment “the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]. We have shown for the first time that in the classical wave experiments: (1) Particle patterns, which are non-interference patterns indicating the particle nature of light, are near the diaphragm, and Interference patterns are near the screen; (2) Particle patterns evolve to Transition patterns that are also non-interference patterns, and, finally, evolve to Interference patterns; (3) Postulates of lens for utilizing lens in wave experiments. blob:https://www.techrxiv.org/615e9312-3e89-48d5-99fe-bbad6cef8a75 blob:https://www.techrxiv.org/4fad8e66-75e1-47db-af51-d9e445461b9b blob:https://www.techrxiv.org/e4274387-92e5-41bb-9185-038555bb2f13 In this article, we experimentally show that Particle patterns, Transition patterns and Interference patterns of the double slit experiments are simultaneously emerged on the screen. We suggest that these phenomena and the physical mechanism of photons distributing as waves are new mystery.
Feynman (1956) called the double slit experiment "a phenomenon […] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery". Penrose (2022) states that “the current quantum mechanics […] is an inconsistent theory”. To study the mystery, explore the nature of light, and test Penrose’s statement, we experimentally show, for the first time, Four Novel Phenomena that are also new mysteries. Single slit Parallel double slit Non-parallel double slit Curved double slit (1) in the same double slit experiment, within macroscopic distances from the diaphragm, the patterns are non-interference and then, gradually evolve to the orthogonal interference patterns; (2) in the same single slit experiment, within macroscopic distances from diaphragm, the patterns are non-diffraction and then, gradually evolve to the orthogonal diffraction patterns; (3) in the non-parallel-double-slits experiment, within macroscopic distances from diaphragm, we observe non-wave pattern and then, which gradually evolve to the hybrid patterns, namely the interference pattern embedded in the diffraction patterns; the hybrid patterns depend on the angle between two slits; (4) Curved-double slit produces non-wave pattern, then gradually evolve to Arc-interference pattern, and then, gradually evolving to Point-symmetry interference pattern. In order to show the universality of each of Four Novel Phenomena, we performed several experiments for each of Four Novel Phenomena. The differences between the single slit, parallel-double slit, non-parallel-double slit and Curved-double slit do not seem so suggestive. However, the patterns are unexpectedly fundamentally different. To consistently/completely explain above Four Novel Phenomena is the challenge to the existing wave theories. The new experimental phenomena support Penrose’s statement. Advances in physical optical experiments demand a consistent/complete theory.
The classical interpretation of Young’s double slit experiment is that, before and after passing through the diaphragm of the double slit, the light behaves as waves. Feynman called the double slit experiment “the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]. We have shown for the first time that in the classical wave experiments: (1) Particle patterns, which are non-interference patterns indicating the particle nature of light, are near the diaphragm, and Interference patterns are near the screen; (2) Particle patterns evolve to Transition patterns that are also non-interference patterns, and, finally, evolve to Interference patterns; (3) Postulates of lens for utilizing lens in wave experiments. blob:https://www.techrxiv.org/615e9312-3e89-48d5-99fe-bbad6cef8a75 blob:https://www.techrxiv.org/4fad8e66-75e1-47db-af51-d9e445461b9b blob:https://www.techrxiv.org/e4274387-92e5-41bb-9185-038555bb2f13 In this article, we experimentally show that Particle patterns, Transition patterns and Interference patterns of the double slit experiments are simultaneously emerged on the screen. We suggest that these phenomena and the physical mechanism of photons distributing as waves are new mystery.
Feynman (1956) called the double slit experiment "a phenomenon […] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery". Penrose (2022) states that “the current quantum mechanics […] is an inconsistent theory”. To study the mystery, explore the nature of light, and test Penrose’s statement, we experimentally show, for the first time, Four Novel Phenomena that are also new mysteries. Single slit Parallel double slit Non-parallel double slit Curved double slit (1) in the same double slit experiment, within macroscopic distances from the diaphragm, the patterns are non-interference and then, gradually evolve to the orthogonal interference patterns; (2) in the same single slit experiment, within macroscopic distances from diaphragm, the patterns are non-diffraction and then, gradually evolve to the orthogonal diffraction patterns; (3) in the non-parallel-double-slits experiment, within macroscopic distances from diaphragm, we observe non-wave pattern and then, which gradually evolve to the hybrid patterns, namely the interference pattern embedded in the diffraction patterns; the hybrid patterns depend on the angle between two slits; (4) Curved-double slit produces non-wave pattern, then gradually evolve to Arc-interference pattern, and then, gradually evolving to Point-symmetry interference pattern. In order to show the universality of each of Four Novel Phenomena, we performed several experiments for each of Four Novel Phenomena. The differences between the single slit, parallel-double slit, non-parallel-double slit and Curved-double slit do not seem so suggestive. However, the patterns are unexpectedly fundamentally different. To consistently/completely explain above Four Novel Phenomena is the challenge to the existing wave theories. The new experimental phenomena support Penrose’s statement. Advances in physical optical experiments demand a consistent/complete theory.