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

arXiv:quant-ph/0111159

Numerical Experiment on Interference for Macroscopic Particles

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Ya.I. Volovich

Published Nov 29, 2001• 9 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We consider a classical analogue of the well known quantum two-slit experiment. Charged particles are scattered on flat screen with two slits and hit the second screen. We show that the probability distribution on the second screen when both slits are open is not given by the sum of distributions for each slit separately, but has an extra interference term that is given with the quantum rule of the addition of probabilistic alternatives. We show that the proposed classical model has a context dependence and could be adequately described with contextual formalism.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0111159

Related papers

Interference, superposition and wave packet collapse

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Antony Valentini

Probability and interference According to Feynman, single-particle interference is ‘the only mystery’ of quantum theory (Feynman, Leighton and Sands 1965, ch. 1, p. 1). Feynman considered an experiment in which particles are fired, one at a time, towards a screen with two holes labelled 1 and 2. With both holes open, the distribution P 12 of particles at the backstop displays an oscillatory pattern of bright and dark fringes. If P 1 is the distribution with only hole 1 open, and P 2 is the distribution with only hole 2 open, then experimentally it is found that P 12 ≠ P 1 + P 2 . According to the argument given by Feynman (as well as by many other authors), this result is inexplicable by ‘classical’ reasoning. By his presentation of the two-slit experiment (as well as by his development of the path-integral formulation of quantum theory), Feynman popularised the idea that the usual probability calculus breaks down in the presence of quantum interference, where it is probability amplitudes (and not probabilities themselves) that are to be added. As pointed out by Koopman (1955), and by Ballentine (1986), this argument is mistaken: the probability distributions at the backstop – P 12 , P 1 and P 2 – are conditional probabilities with three distinct conditions (both slits open, one or other slit closed), and probability calculus does not imply any relationship between these. Feynman's argument notwithstanding, standard probability calculus is perfectly consistent with the two-slit experiment.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 22, 2009•0 citations

Classical probabilistic realisation of quantum double-slit interference

Christof Wetterich

We demonstrate how the interference effects for a quantum particle in the double-slit experiment can be described by classical probabilities. We investigate a classical field theory for a complex scalar field with probabilistic initial conditions. A central element are conserved charges leading to the concept of particles. These are statistical observables which describe properties of the probability distribution for field configurations. The conserved charges define subsystems for particle excitations of a vacuum state. The classical probability distribution for the one-particle subsystem can be expressed in terms of a complex wave function. The Liouville equation for the classical probability distribution implies that the time evolution of this wave function obeys the Schrödinger equation for a quantum particle in a potential. The potential arises from space-dependent external fields in the otherwise relativistic classical field theory. It can be chosen arbitrarily, realizing the typical quantum effects of interference, tunneling or discrete energy spectra.

quant-pharXiv:2607.11580•Jul 14, 2026•0 citations

`Quantum probabilities' as context depending probabilities

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We study transformations of conventional (`classical') probabilities induced by context transitions. It is demonstrated that the transition from one complex of conditions to another induces a perturbation of the classical rule for the addition of probabilistic alternatives. We classify such perturbations. It is shown that there are two classes of perturbations: (a) trigonometric interference; (b) hyperbolic interference. In particular, the well known `quantum interference of probabilistic alternatives' can be obtained in classical (but contextual) probabilistic framework. Therefore we need not apply to wave arguments (or consider superposition principle) to get Quantum Statistics. In particular, interference could be a feature of experiments with purely corpuscular objects.

arXiv:quant-ph/0106073•Jun 13, 2001•12 citations

An Attempt to Describe Quantum Interference on two Slits in Classical Terms

Vladimir K. Ignatovich, K. E. Batkov

An idea of interpretation of quantum interference in classical terms is presented. Classical propagation of an electron through a slit in a perfectly conducting screen is considered. The change of the electron trajectory under influence of a nearby slit in the same screen is evaluated. The goal of this study is to see whether the influence of the second slit on the electron trajectory can be interpreted as interference in quantum mechanics.

American Journal of Modern Physics•Jun 9, 2015•0 citations

Two Slits Interference Is Compatible with Particles' Trajectories

Vladimir V. Kisil

We propose a simple numerical experiment of two slits interference of particles. It disproves the popular belief that such an interference is incompatible with a knowledge which slit each particle came through or, more generally, ``quantum particles could not have trajectories''. Our model is an illustration to the contextual interpretation of quantum probabilities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0111094•Nov 19, 2001•6 citations

Quantum Two Slit Interference and Determinism Versus Probability in Interactions

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In classical physics, interactions appear to be of the form of cause and effect, as in Newton’s second law is: F = dp/dt. The force F governs the interaction and dp/dt is the effect. In quantum mechanics, there is a probability for an impulse hit interaction by a particle given by exp(ipx) within a wavelength region of size hbar/p. As a result, instead of an interaction occurring within dx->0, the particle itself dictates an interaction region of the size hbar/p. Consequently, in a 2-slit interaction, the slits should be about a wavelength hbar/p apart. In classical physics, an interaction occurs within the interaction region (dx->0), but in the 2-slit case the interaction region includes the space from the first slit to the second, so to ask: What is happening as the particle interacts within this region? means that a particle can pass through one slit and inteact with the other, or it can interact with the slit through which it passes. The interaction region is the smallest region in which the interaction occurs (as if it were a black box). The particle physically passes through one slit or the other, but interacts either way with both slits probabilisitcally because otherwise the interaction region would only be one slit or the other contradicting the probabilistic range hbar/p of interaction. As a result, a two-slit calculation is really a calculation of an interaction within an hbar/p region including both slits. This interaction is probabilistic due to the exp(ipx) interaction hit nature of the particle and so it is the particle which dictates the interaction to a large degree. The fact that the particle must pass through one slit or the other, together with a probabilistic interaction over the hbar/p region means that two key notions are at work, one being the physical location of the particle (passing through one slit or the other) which governs how the probabilistic interaction (due to the particle) operates. In particular, one draws two parallel rays, one from the center of each slit towards a fixed point on a screen far away. The interaction is based on the exp(ipx) probabilistic interaction of the particle and the separation of the two slits because the particle interacts with both as it passes through only one. In other words, reality is not simply based on what one can measure during an interaction. The fact that one does measure through which slit the particle passes does not mean that the positions of the slits cannot stil helpl lead to determinate statements such as zero particles arrive at certain x points on the screen. The slit separation is part of the physical reality of the problem. (Note: there is also diffraction from the two edges of each slit, i.e. diffraction, which follows the same ideas and so one has a combination of diffraction from each slit together with interference.) As a result, we suggest that one consider the entire region from one slit to the other as a quantum interaction region similar to the dx->0 used in Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics then provides a probabilistic, not deterministic, descripition of possible interactions and their probability weights, unlike the cause (force) and effect (deterministic change in p of the particle) of Newtonian mechanics. The exp(ipx), hbar/p gradation form of probability, allows for probabilities to add or subtract at different x points. The walls of the 2-slit apparatus are linked with probabilistic momentum angle changing, with each angle having the same probability (uniform distribution), but otherwise much of the interaction is dictated by the particle, unlike in Netwonian mechanics. For a V(x) = Sum over i Vk exp(ikx), both exp(ipx) and exp(ikx) are one a similar footing.

•Aug 4, 2026•0 citations
We consider a classical analogue of the well known quantum two-slit experiment. Charged particles are scattered on flat screen with two slits and hit the second screen. We show that the probability distribution on the second screen when both slits are open is not given by the sum of distributions for each slit separately, but has an extra interference term that is given with the quantum rule of the addition of probabilistic alternatives. We show that the proposed classical model has a context dependence and could be adequately described with contextual formalism.
Probability and interference According to Feynman, single-particle interference is ‘the only mystery’ of quantum theory (Feynman, Leighton and Sands 1965, ch. 1, p. 1). Feynman considered an experiment in which particles are fired, one at a time, towards a screen with two holes labelled 1 and 2. With both holes open, the distribution P 12 of particles at the backstop displays an oscillatory pattern of bright and dark fringes. If P 1 is the distribution with only hole 1 open, and P 2 is the distribution with only hole 2 open, then experimentally it is found that P 12 ≠ P 1 + P 2 . According to the argument given by Feynman (as well as by many other authors), this result is inexplicable by ‘classical’ reasoning. By his presentation of the two-slit experiment (as well as by his development of the path-integral formulation of quantum theory), Feynman popularised the idea that the usual probability calculus breaks down in the presence of quantum interference, where it is probability amplitudes (and not probabilities themselves) that are to be added. As pointed out by Koopman (1955), and by Ballentine (1986), this argument is mistaken: the probability distributions at the backstop – P 12 , P 1 and P 2 – are conditional probabilities with three distinct conditions (both slits open, one or other slit closed), and probability calculus does not imply any relationship between these. Feynman's argument notwithstanding, standard probability calculus is perfectly consistent with the two-slit experiment.
We demonstrate how the interference effects for a quantum particle in the double-slit experiment can be described by classical probabilities. We investigate a classical field theory for a complex scalar field with probabilistic initial conditions. A central element are conserved charges leading to the concept of particles. These are statistical observables which describe properties of the probability distribution for field configurations. The conserved charges define subsystems for particle excitations of a vacuum state. The classical probability distribution for the one-particle subsystem can be expressed in terms of a complex wave function. The Liouville equation for the classical probability distribution implies that the time evolution of this wave function obeys the Schrödinger equation for a quantum particle in a potential. The potential arises from space-dependent external fields in the otherwise relativistic classical field theory. It can be chosen arbitrarily, realizing the typical quantum effects of interference, tunneling or discrete energy spectra.
We study transformations of conventional (`classical') probabilities induced by context transitions. It is demonstrated that the transition from one complex of conditions to another induces a perturbation of the classical rule for the addition of probabilistic alternatives. We classify such perturbations. It is shown that there are two classes of perturbations: (a) trigonometric interference; (b) hyperbolic interference. In particular, the well known `quantum interference of probabilistic alternatives' can be obtained in classical (but contextual) probabilistic framework. Therefore we need not apply to wave arguments (or consider superposition principle) to get Quantum Statistics. In particular, interference could be a feature of experiments with purely corpuscular objects.
In classical physics, interactions appear to be of the form of cause and effect, as in Newton’s second law is: F = dp/dt. The force F governs the interaction and dp/dt is the effect. In quantum mechanics, there is a probability for an impulse hit interaction by a particle given by exp(ipx) within a wavelength region of size hbar/p. As a result, instead of an interaction occurring within dx->0, the particle itself dictates an interaction region of the size hbar/p. Consequently, in a 2-slit interaction, the slits should be about a wavelength hbar/p apart. In classical physics, an interaction occurs within the interaction region (dx->0), but in the 2-slit case the interaction region includes the space from the first slit to the second, so to ask: What is happening as the particle interacts within this region? means that a particle can pass through one slit and inteact with the other, or it can interact with the slit through which it passes. The interaction region is the smallest region in which the interaction occurs (as if it were a black box). The particle physically passes through one slit or the other, but interacts either way with both slits probabilisitcally because otherwise the interaction region would only be one slit or the other contradicting the probabilistic range hbar/p of interaction. As a result, a two-slit calculation is really a calculation of an interaction within an hbar/p region including both slits. This interaction is probabilistic due to the exp(ipx) interaction hit nature of the particle and so it is the particle which dictates the interaction to a large degree. The fact that the particle must pass through one slit or the other, together with a probabilistic interaction over the hbar/p region means that two key notions are at work, one being the physical location of the particle (passing through one slit or the other) which governs how the probabilistic interaction (due to the particle) operates. In particular, one draws two parallel rays, one from the center of each slit towards a fixed point on a screen far away. The interaction is based on the exp(ipx) probabilistic interaction of the particle and the separation of the two slits because the particle interacts with both as it passes through only one. In other words, reality is not simply based on what one can measure during an interaction. The fact that one does measure through which slit the particle passes does not mean that the positions of the slits cannot stil helpl lead to determinate statements such as zero particles arrive at certain x points on the screen. The slit separation is part of the physical reality of the problem. (Note: there is also diffraction from the two edges of each slit, i.e. diffraction, which follows the same ideas and so one has a combination of diffraction from each slit together with interference.) As a result, we suggest that one consider the entire region from one slit to the other as a quantum interaction region similar to the dx->0 used in Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics then provides a probabilistic, not deterministic, descripition of possible interactions and their probability weights, unlike the cause (force) and effect (deterministic change in p of the particle) of Newtonian mechanics. The exp(ipx), hbar/p gradation form of probability, allows for probabilities to add or subtract at different x points. The walls of the 2-slit apparatus are linked with probabilistic momentum angle changing, with each angle having the same probability (uniform distribution), but otherwise much of the interaction is dictated by the particle, unlike in Netwonian mechanics. For a V(x) = Sum over i Vk exp(ikx), both exp(ipx) and exp(ikx) are one a similar footing.