The Two-slit Experiment With Electrons

Recommended Posts

THE TWO-SLIT EXPERIMENT WITH ELECTRONS

(Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2)

The two-slit experiment with electrons (Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2) is described below:

Electrons moving at a velocity V = 727 cm/sec (that is, λ = 0,01 cm according to L. de Broglie law), pass through two slits S1 and S2 of width d = 10λ, namely d = 0,1 cm (d = 1 mm). Slits S1 and S2, lie at a distance b = 2 cm from one another.

Also, distance between slits S1,S2 and screen S is L = 100cm.

Thus, in this case, (if Quantum Mechanics truly applies) the electrons passing through the two slits S1 and S2 should form on screen S bright fringes (electron concentration) and dark fringes (zero electron concentration).

The following question is being raised:

In experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 the electrons passing through the two slits S1 and S2 will cause bright and dark fringes to form on screen S will these fringes lie at a stable distance f = 0,5 cm from one another, as Wave Mechanics asserts?

My opinion on the above question is NO!

In other words:

The electrons passing through the two slits S1 and S2 will fall directly onto screen S, without ever forming bright and dark fringes, as Wave Mechanics sates.

Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 is a simple and low-cost experiment to conduct.

Consequently, the results of experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 will allow us to establish once and for all whether Wave Mechanics (and thus Quantum Mechanics) are two accurate or wrong Theories of Physics.

CONCLUSION

In order to verify whether Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are two accurate or erroneous Theories of Physics, their experimental checking should be conducted only through “pure diffraction experiments” (P.D.E.).

In no case whatsoever should this checking take place by means of non “pure diffraction experiments” (i.e. experiments involving the use of crystals), such as the Davisson – Germer experiment, etc.

Crystals must be totally absent from our experiments. Reiteration: CRYSTALS MUST BE TOTALLY ABSENT FROM OUR EXPERIMENTS.

This signifies that:

For the experimental checking of Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics Bragg’s law must never be employed.

In other words, in our experiment, the electrons that are emitted from their source should reach the screen without interference from any crystal during their course.

Unfortunately, no “pure diffraction experiments” (P.D.E.) have been carried out so far in order to have Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics experimentally verified, which is a major omission for modern Physics.

Let us hope that such experiments (P.D.E.) will be conducted soon.

It is imperative that the above experiment be carried out so that we can establish if Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are two accurate or erroneous Theories of Physics.

Thanks,

Tony (C.A. Tsolkas)

Share on other sites

Crystals must be totally absent from our experiments. Reiteration: CRYSTALS MUST BE TOTALLY ABSENT FROM OUR EXPERIMENTS.

But you haven't explained why.

Anyway, it's moot. Claus Jonsson did an electron double-slit experiment back in 1961, and it was later done with single electrons in the apparatus in the 70's.

Atoms have been sent through multiple-slit transmission gratings and the interference onserved. I've worked in the field. The guy in the next office did one of the experiments. (I made gratings and built the slow atomic beam apparatus for the project on which I worked, but I graduated before interference was attempted)

Back to the drawing board for you.

Share on other sites

"CRYSTALS MUST BE TOTALLY ABSENT FROM OUR EXPERIMENTS"

So what are you going to make the stuff out of? Anyway, as has been said, the experiment was done; QM was verified.

Share on other sites

whats wrong with using crystals anyway? the whole point is that they are ordered structures so it is relatively easy to back track and see what happened.

Share on other sites

Being an anti-relativity crank means never having to explain yourself.

(lest anyone feel this is persecution, the second line of his web site — to which I will not link — is "THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS WRONG")

Posts: 11

Pretty much exclusively hit-and-run, and apparently not interested in defending his claims.

Share on other sites

Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 is a simple and low-cost experiment to conduct.

How do you cheaply cool the electrons to ~ 0.000001 degrees kelvin?

Share on other sites

How do you cheaply cool the electrons to ~ 0.000001 degrees kelvin?

That's just a matter of making the beam approximately monoenergetic. I imagine it's pretty easy to do, assuming you have an electron beam source to begin with.

Share on other sites

... In experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 the electrons passing through the two slits S1 and S2 will cause bright and dark fringes to form on screen S will these fringes lie at a stable distance f = 0,5 cm from one another, as Wave Mechanics asserts? My opinion on the above question is NO! ...

Tsolkas, sorry, I think your approach is wrong here. Experiments indicate that these entities really do pass through both slits. And crystals or no crystals, the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics works. In my humble opinion you should challenge the interpretations, not the observations.

Being an anti-relativity crank means never having to explain yourself. (lest anyone feel this is persecution, the second line of his web site — to which I will not link — is "THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS WRONG") Posts: 11 Threads started: 10. Pretty much exclusively hit-and-run, and apparently not interested in defending his claims.

That is so cheap. Because if he was pro-relativity, explained himself clearly, and defended his claims such that nobody could put up a coherent logical argument against them, you know where his thread would end up.

Edit: I have just received a ten-point "flaming" infraction for the above from YT.

Share on other sites

damn right!

and it also goes to prove you ARE capable of accurate Observation too

Share on other sites

That is so cheap. Because if he was pro-relativity, explained himself clearly, and defended his claims such that nobody could put up a coherent logical argument against them, you know where his thread would end up.

But you can't be describing yourself, because you miss on all counts. Anyone who claims that a moving observer's value for c changes can't be pro-relativity. Tsolkas, though misguided and mistaken, at least has proposed experiments and used math is his derivations, rather than hand-waving and analogies. It's at least an attempt to do things rigorously.

Your stuff gets moved to speculations because it's not science.

Share on other sites

That is so cheap. Because if he was pro-relativity, explained himself clearly, and defended his claims such that nobody could put up a coherent logical argument against them, you know where his thread would end up.

Edit: I have just received a ten-point "flaming" infraction for the above from YT.

I can easily defend a claim such that no one can put up a coherent logical argument against them. Observe:

Quantum mechanics is wrong, and I'm right!!!!! Lalalalalala not listening! NOT LISTENING!!! You can't critisize this because I have not accepted your criticisms of my previous claims. Lalalalalala not listening! NOT LISTENING!!!

There's no logical argument that can stand against that