Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi All,

Forgive me for butting in but can you actually explain just what the problem is here? I would have expected that a simple understanding of the DSE would have resulted by now. Does anyone dispute that the photons seek all paths? That photons do not pass through slits one at a time so they are not 'billiard balls". Interference (in the main... specifically all the situations noted here) occurs only "within" a single photon at a time otherwise how do you explain single photons building up complete interference patterns? The "photon wave" must pass both slits ... all slits or semi-reflect off all semi-mirrored surfaces (this means that the "wave" propagates through as many paths available... like a wave should) ... providing you do not need "which way" information this is the final result unequivocally. A "semi-reflecting" surface means there are two possible paths there so the "photon wave" takes both. So photon "particles" do not "exist" when they travel as waves. When you "insist" that you know which way a "particle" has traveled then it will naturally resolve which slit the photon actually passes through but not at all in other circumstances. When that happens do not be surprised that the photon has passed only one slit and so there is no double slit interference.

Surface Plasmon Resonance may or may not produce any visible effects. Plasmons do not occur unless you are working with metals in the slits in contact with gas or liquids. Most double slit experiments work fine using the standard kits using smoked glass cover slips with a fine line inscribed on them. I am certain that they work in a vacuum as well. Since it is a limited phenomenon I doubt if surface plasmons are the answer to all the questions raised here. I think it is a given that DSE occurs without the existence of plasmon action at the slits, the phenomenon of interference is to be sought elsewhere.. Am I missing something?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 13 2007, 02:59 AM

Hello GE, you are not butting in. This is an open forum for discussion and opinion.

Are you completely ignoring atomic dipoles and dielectric effects? As Aerohead
so perfectly stated "All waves diffract as a result of boundary conditions".
Every solid material, whether it is metal or otherwise, has surface dielectric
properties that couple it to "space" and externally applied EM sources. Under the
right conditions, any material can become an energy emitter or receiver via
atomic dipole action. Is there a reason to want to disregard permittivity and
susceptibility and EM field coupling inside the slit "cavities"? The conceptual
model that I am proposing by "modeling" with a single wavepulse also accounts
for continuous cycle EM wavefronts. Whether you call them plasmons,
optical phonons, or dipole moments, there is always an energy "exchange"
when, and where, different energy systems "meet". If you add momentum
to that energy exchange the force of the interaction is increased.

I am curious about your conceptualization of how wave pulse fronts maintain
regular temporal frequency "spacing"

You were ambiguous in whom you were addressing specific issues to with your
comments, so I can only assume that you were addressing your "particle" comments to C2, since I have made it clear that I support EM wave theory and
also apply the concept to the EM fields of matter.

I would ask that if you disagree with specific comments that you quote them and
post your opinion or rebuttal comments.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 13 2007, 04:20 AM

GE, some further comments...

My explanation was ended within the confines of the slits and has not yet actually
gotten to the signal mixing/interference point. My conceptualization was to
describe the mechanism of what causes diffraction spreading and intaction of
of a photon wavefront with matter as it passes thru the geometry of the slits.

I have already previoulsy stated that the mixing/interference point is the
rear wall area between the slits where the expanding EM waves combine/intefere.
One of Visser's papers that showed a micrograph of poynting vector field lines
seemed to support this "theory" and provided their own analysis using a
gold slit wall and surface plasmon's. IMO, if it works under those conditions
then a "similar" phenomenon must be at work when other wall materials are
used.

Comments, discussion welcomed.

LL

Hello all

From my reading of this link it appears that DSE is a measure of spacial coherence while the Michelson Interferometer measures temporal coherence. Would these facts shed some light on this subject.

Hi Montec,

IMO, spacial dislocation sets up temporal mismatches in the timing of the
wave fronts that cause wave interference.
Can't the spacial dislocation be negated by "realigning" the timing of the wave
front signals. Isn't that what the paper that you referenced is doing...
realigning/overlapping the signal timing? I know that if you invert the
signals and make them time coincident their equal amplitude components
will "cancel" and any unequal amplitude delta existing between the
inverted signals will yield a "remainder" signal.

Regards,
LL

Hi Laserlight,

Replacing the dark bits with walls.. (in the ripple tank) .. yes, the 'walls' are modelled as perfect reflectors so you're building a waveguide. That is why I suggested reflecting the central bright wave off to the right using a wall at 45 degrees .. then you see what happens when the left hand 'beam' is neither guided nor an interference effect.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Laserlight, (others may find this interesting as well)...

I will try and reference specific issues where possible but things have certainly become "confused" to say the least... at least in the manner I view things.

IMHO the temporal frequency is fixed by the rate of propagation. Electromagnetic Waves spread at the speed of light but this is constrained by the transverse modes of propagation which involve OAM. This maintains the shape of the "pulse" in the temporal direction and confines it in the spatial transverse direction respectively. The most important aspect about a single photon and its ability to form in a unique diffraction pattern is to originate from a single coherent source (or near to one). Lasers solve this problem since all the photons emitted from the the resonant chamber all have the same longitudinal mode (standing wave pattern) regardless of when the photon is emitted.

I use the term "wave" very loosely since any electromagnetic pulse will propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum. Of course pulse "spreading" cannot occur without wavefront curvature. This is a natural consequence of waves... and true plane waves cannot exist... this is an abstraction to make our calculations easier in the same way that "point sources" help with calculations as well. The energy of successive wavefronts remains constant as T increases however photons are absorbed out of the "pool" and this relationship is the ISL (Inverse Square Law). No part of the wave or pulse can depart from its place in time where it originated from so this is what the various places in the pulse are maintaining... there is the light cone wall between any point forward of the pulse and any point aft of the propagating wavefront cannot be influenced by what is now on the wavefront (an arbitrary defined position).

It is possible to think of a completely inverted frame of reference where the "photon wave" is a "constant size and shape" and our Universe around it is what is progressively shrinking relative to it if the "wave" is allowed to expand. Such a "finite frame" that retains its physical proportions and allows the evolution of time is a true particle field where mass is one of the consequences. If everything is made of "light" then this possibility is what we experience as our reality. Experiment seems to indicate this is indeed the case in a special frame of reference.

While this is true... the actual interference occurs inside the body of the wave and the effects are seen at distance from the slits (holes). This "mechanism" illustrated below may be helpful in understanding how the "plane" wave once passing through an aperture begins to diverge from a different apparent source through "spreading". I am going to quote from this source...
Dispersion, Diffraction and Diffraction Gratings
And I am going to use this image below (click to enlarge)... Please pay "no attention" to the depiction of the source since it will only confuse the situation (assume incident plane waves)...

The idealized "Fraunhofer" wavefronts which have "no apparent curvature" exhibit "classically" no clumping of the energy about a central point (zero mode). When the "plane wave" passes through a "slit or hole" it then begins to exhibit clumping naturally (transverse modes) as a result of this phenomena (Gibbs phenomena).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon
This is the result of curvature of the wavefront "seeking all paths". This leads to the light and dark "patching" due to spatial "dispersion". Special phenomena around the "edges" are not necessary since this phenomena are within the body of the photon wave and not along the edges. I do not deny "edge effects" but these are lower order phenomena and we can safely neglect them when they do not involve particle to wave interactions resulting in a loss of qubit. The ones of concern to the interference pattern are those that have not lost their qubit. This is a form of dispersion not seen in natural light propagating from very distant sources and light packets "in the wild" do not exhibit dispersion when propagating in a vacuum. A new free standing source in space with a physical "extent" exhibits the identical phenomena without the slit mask. Such a source could be a single photon emitted from an atom somewhere in empty space. Once more I still maintain that there are no "particles" propagating as waves without "dispersion". The "photon particle" is truly not in the space the "photon waves" are traversing otherwise it could not effect "interference".

Call this "higher dimensions" or something else but the matter wave is not there. A true "particle" like an electron must be moving in a similar space without appreciable "spreading" as long as it has some relative velocity... this is the de Broglie wavelength.

Does this help clarify my point of view? If others want to contribute or extend please feel free...

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 13 2007, 03:28 PM

HI GE,

I'm confused by this statement. Why do you keep bringing up the "photon
particle"? I do not believe in "photon particles". I do, however, believe
that a wavefront is comprised of nearly synchronous, coherent, EM wavelets.
Each EM wavelet is the individual energy pulse emitted from a single atom dipole
during the development of the wavefront from the emitting matter matrix.
The entire composite wavefront pulse propagates as a single coherent photon wave
comprised of individual wavelets. Because the individual EM wavelet pulses are
coherent with every other wavelet pulse in the main propagating photon pulse they
can interfere with each other, within the photon pulse, if they become phase
inverted by reflecting from matter. Basically, a photon is a major EM pulse
comprised of a plethora of minor nearly synchronous EM "pulselets" that are
temporally intertwined but spacially separated in the pulse.

In this description wavelets = corpuscles, with corpuscles not being a physical
particle but another name for an EM wavelet dipole pulse. Perhaps this is
where you are getting the idea of "particles". I think Newton's original meaning
was particles, because the idea of EM wave energy was unknown by him. He had
the right basic idea but the wrong mechanism so he termed it using the
vernacular of the time. In any case we are talking propagating wavelet EM energy
and not particles.

Discussion welcomed,

Regards,
LL

Hi all,


LL

First, you must put my statement back into context...

I specifically said to the Confused guy that IF you want to use the Huygens model, then you must accept that "photons" are able to interact in free space, because that IS what the model does. There are no "rules" in the Huygens model that says "go to the first mass that you find, and make it a new source of light". It just simply says where the nodes are can be treated as new point sources.

The larger point being, that the Confused guy was being his usual rude self in this conversation, and was changing the subject, changing his stance, or in any other way possible, to obstruct the thread from moving past the inadequate models of the past.

The Fraunhofer method, and the Huygens method can NOT be used interchangeably. If you have made an "argument" based on one, you have no legs to stand on if you "jump ship" to the other in mid-stream.

The "all or nothing" model of "constructive/destructive interference" would produce sharp contrast lines; the results differ from that prediction. Enter "QM", with a lowered expectation approach of "probabilistic/statistical" predictions, and we can "look the other way", because they "just can't understand" (their words) QM.

If whole wavelengths = "constructive", and 1/2 wavelengths = "destructive", the WHAT is a 1/4 wavelength (or 3/4) going to do? Have fun trying to answer that with the inadequate models.

If you ask a parabolic curve when it's going to "settle down" (zero), you will die waiting for the answer. Dividing by 2 (harmonics) requires an entirely different approach. Enter the mathematical "limit", with examples like "Nyquist", and the "Frequency Comb", and yes, the "Octave" and my Chord model.


Next question: LL asks

No disrespect, but this is a "nonsense" question, IF you wish to maintain the integrity of absolute definitions in the realm of sub-atomic Physics.

The "Vacuum" means "no matter (mass) is present". So, by your own suggestion, no mass means no interaction. We can't have massless slits, or a screen, so there is no DSE.

However, for arguments' sake, lets' say we evacuate all (almost) of the air (N, O, etc.) from the standard set-up DSE. First off, we are going to have problems with the electrons that make up the materials of the equipment. If you will notice that ALL electron (mass) diffraction experiments, as well as photoelectric, etc. are done in vacuum, and ALL "photon" diffraction experiments ARE NOT done in vacuum, you have to ask yourself WHY?

If you want to propose that the results will be the same, then I suggest that you submit a reference to this experiment being done (pre-supposing that you will not be able to do this "at home"). That's all that I would ask: show me.

If you don't find it strange that you will not be able to find this experiment already having been done, then maybe you'll just "march on" and ignore the potential for problems. If we "unbind" electrons, they are going to "get in the way". My hunch is that we would get the same results as when we put a "detector" (mass) behind 1 slit in the DSE: NO diffraction pattern.


regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

I admit my forest post was not exactly complimentary .. I wanted to make the point that people (Good Elf, Laserlight, Montec et al .. you can include me in the list if you like ) don't seem to be relating what they write to what they seeing in the DSE.

Just waves to start with ..

Reluctantly I have to admit that the msn Encarta page on light seems excellent :-
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579230_5/Light.html

One of the things it does not make clear is that a 'ray' of light is (by definition) perpendicular to the wavefront (and vice-versa). So the ray diagrams that 'explain' interference can leave out the waves themselves because they are there by implication (at right angles to the line). The Huygens and the ray diffraction diagrams are the same (for the same reason) but are drawing different 'bits' for clarity or, as you point out, lack of clarity.

This seems pretty good on Huygens:-
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/5...html#Section5.4

To understand Huygens it is vital to understand superposition .. so more on superposition:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

In particular

Huygens, superposition, ray diagrams .. all very much part of the same thing. Apologies for any confusion caused.

What happens between full constructive interference and full cancellation?

We're adding (superposition) two waves to get a result .. for frequency wt and general phase difference a,b and amplitudes X,Y it looks like this:-

1/ X sin(wt + a) + Y sin(wt +b)

The result is always a new sinewave with a new phase and amplitude .. do you really want me to do this? .. OK ..

2/ To save my sanity let's assume X and Y are the same .

3/ sin(wt + a) + sin(wt +b)

4/ Obviously if a=b then they are 'in phase' and we get

5/ 2sin(wt+a) .. twice the amplitude of either term

6/ And if a=-b (out of phase) we get

7/ 0

8/ For any other a and and be we get ..whoopee..

9/ sin(wt+a) + sin(wt+b) = 2 sin((wt + a + wt + b)/2)cos((wt + a - wt - b)/2)

10/ = 2 sin(wt + (a+b)/2))cos(wt+ ((a-b)/2))

11/ = 2 (sin(wt)cos((a+b/)2) + cos(wt)sin(((a+b/)2))(cos(wt)cos((a-b)/2) - sin(wt)sin((a-b)/2))

12/ = 2 (sin(wt)cos((a+b/)2)cos(wt)cos((a-b)/2) - sin(wt)cos((a+b/)2)sin(wt)sin((a-b)/2) + cos(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)cos(wt)cos((a-b)/2)- cos(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)sin(wt)sin((a-b)/2)

Collecting up a bit

14/ = 2( sin(wt)cos(wt) cos((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) - sin(wt)sin(wt) cos((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2) + cos(wt)cos(wt) sin(((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) -cos(wt)sin(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2))

15/ = 2( sin(wt)cos(wt)cos((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) - sin^2(wt) cos((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2) +cos^2(wt) sin(((a+b/)2)cos((a-b)/2) - cos(wt)sin(wt)sin(((a+b/)2)sin((a-b)/2))

16/ = this is a real pig .. will we REALLY be any further forward if it works out?

In this notation we take any magnitudes A,B and any phases a,b and it works out in three lines
Ae^j(wt + a) + Be^j(wt + b)
= Ae^ja e^jwt + Ba^jb e^jwt
= ( Ae^ja + Be^jb ) e ^jwt
such is the power of notation.
NB j_electronics= i_maths ( sqrt(-1) ) would you like more on this?
We have the problem of whether we want the result to be 'Intensity' .. do we mean power? .. or amplitude.. one is the square of the other .. if we understand neither then it really doesn't matter so I post power.

With what I have given above

And the EM equation .. ( I used to be able to get some sense out of it but I've really forgotten how to do it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation

it's all pretty sewn up.

------------------- UNTIL ----------------------------

----------- The single photon DSE ----------------

The result agrees precisely with continuous sinewave excitation. Good Elf seems to think that's impossible so he doesn't seem to see it and tries to explain what he thinks is more likely than the reality. And so it goes on.

Despite outward appearances I think your comments have been the wisest and your approach has been the best on the thread so far.

Best wishes,

-C2.

I hope I've clarified a few bits.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Feb 14 2007, 12:01 AM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2 and TRoc and other friends,

Please understand that when I reply to a question I am addressing two audiences, the individual as well as the others who may be reading this occasionally so I am trying to develop a general language that everyone understands rather than using "in-speak" that only two people can make any sense of. I expect that everyone who claims to understand science use the lingo provided and not to bury themselves in "private" interpretations... at least when communicating. When I refer to "particles" and "waves" in inverted commas I mean fermionic and bosonic properties respectively. The only way we can distinguish is by the manner in which we can measure these properties and measurement often changes things critically. In some respects we can measure both separately but not at the same time. Photons do exhibit both properties of bosons and fermions at different times. I keep repeating myself because there is no consensus on terminology here. Laserlight is continuing to speak in "either-or" notation and suggesting strongly that photons are never particles. I also refer to photons as "waves" but they will interact as "particles" at the source and sinks where they behave as the force carriers (exchange particles) in our Universe also in the role of "virtual photons".

This is not tenable since photons exhibit both properties at times, those of "waves" and those of "particles". This is not open for "debate" since it has strong experimental support regardless of personal belief. This is long understood as the "wave-particle duality". Any theory must incorporate both and not explain the other away as some kind of "delusion".

TRoc is only half right about speaking of "you MUST also accept that 'photons' ARE able to interact in free space" since you must be more specific than simply saying "interact" when you say these things. It is confusing to many since what TRoc actually means is "wavelike" interactions not "particlelike" interactions. Wavelike interactions involve superposition of states (a boson "property") while collapse of many superimposed states to one state is a fermion "property". There is a "tradition" that has arisen that refers to what is happening in "free space" as if we actually knew what was going on there by "observation". Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is very important to separate what is an "observation" from a "mental picture" that we have which is simply an aide to understanding. I accept that waves do propagate in space but continuously observing that a single photon actually creates 'waves' hanging in space from source to destination, is very hard to prove and indeed may even be "contradictory" in its very proposition. We must be careful to distinguish and explain what it is we are referring to. If you are trying to explain 'waves" in space then when we measure them we collapse the wave and measure that collapsed state not the original "propagating" state.

It is like saying that space was filled with "invisible rabbits" that run from one bunny hole to the next. The only way we are allowed to prove this is to "accidentally" shoot a bunny between holes which can be an "observation". Once we have shot a number of bunnies we believe we have shown that our thesis is proven... that bunnies are running from hole to hole unobserved... but all we have to show for it are dead bunnies that can run nowhere. The existence of "dead bunnies" tell us nothing positive about the "live" invisible bunnies actually apparently running between holes in a similar way to visible bunnies. We have assumed that a bunny is a bunny is a bunny.

Photons are not entirely particles so the way they "travel" cannot be inferred from the way other particles apparently travel. It goes back to our assumptions about the nature of particles which is a very old concept that is not rooted in good science but in the idea that we have four "elements"... Earth, Air, Fire, Water. Democritus realized that this "Earth" had properties different from the "void" which we all tend to agree with today (out of ignorance ... not out of a deeper understanding). He coined the idea of "Atoms".

Advanced thinking for 2500 years ago but many people still think this way in the 21st century. "Particles" according to Democritus were "Earth" and "Light" would be "Fire". In fact I can absolutely guarantee that this is very wrong from the result of our experiments. Because we can intercept photons between source and a possible sink does not mean that they are "traveling" in the space between in a conventional sense. The inference would be this is a "particle"... this is wrong... we know this is a "wave". A "which way" experiment quickly will convince you this is dead wrong.

If we all use inclusive rather than exclusive terminology then more people will understand what it is we are saying. At present imprecision is leading to confusion and to "battles" none of us need. The other point I would like to say is because this discussion has degenerated into a trivial understanding and bickering about particles and waves, the more important concepts are totally lost. No progress is possible until we understand each other and are able to communicate at the same level. I think am saying very important things here and it draws a blank because of this "distraction".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 14 2007, 12:57 AM

Hi Confused2,

There are no continuous sine waves in nature. Photon emission are associated with "packets" which are not "sine waves". Packets can be considered as a superposition of wavelets... this is not the same thing. What you are probably referring to is phase matching of the wave packet to the "line"... is this correct? When I say "line"... I can mean "empty space" with boundaries through which EM can propagate. A "resonant line" has an impulse response and the best way to analyze the way in which a waveform will propagate along a "line" is to start with the impulse response. Many points I have discussed have involved this "standing wave pattern" which are 'longitudinal modes" in space. With this concept and with the impulse response any "waveform" (even wave packets) can be constructed and the "line" response is simply the sum of the responses as a superposition.

Mathematics does not recognize "nearly a sine wave". Everything starts and stops so it is no sine wave since by definition a sine wave goes on forever in both directions. What we actually have are waveforms. One waveform is the "wave packet" ideally a wave packet of a single photon, but may be more complicated functions.... It has a beginning and an end... sometimes there are great difficulties in defining the "beginning and the end" but we must live with it. There are also the other ways to deal with photons such as the two separate methods of Feynman (& Wheeler) but since this has not been mentioned this is ignored for the time being but is retained in the back of my mind as a possible "complication".

Cheers

Hi all,


Good points GE. Reminders that we do NOT know what is happening between 2 electrons, when a quanta of energy is transferred between them. I do not believe that the "separate" definition that "creates" the "photon" is justified. Just a historical glitch, that can be corrected.

I'll say again (because it wasn't included in the quote you made of me), that IN THE HUYGENS MODEL, where the new points are "created", and become new "sources" of light, we can conclude that there was an interaction between "photons" (EM waves) that resulted in ONE new wave.

In the eyes of QM, this is wrong. Only an electron can create a "photon" in that model. However, the Huygens model works very well. At the "last new point", before hitting the screen, the vectors are perpendicular to the screen. Point being: there are no angles involved (from the slit). The dark bands are just the midpoints of 2 incident waves.

The fact that Young "reverse engineered" a good estimate of the wavelength of the EM wave by the size of the diffraction pattern is also very good. (I think Fresnel or Fraunhofer had more to do with that, but its' not important for this conversation)

The point on that model is, that it is REVERSE engineering. It is looking at the results, and developing a system that works well enough to "predict" it, for the next person to perform the experiment. The problem is, that is suggests "rays", because lines are arbitrarily drawn from arbitrary points that symmetrically divide the width of the slit. They (in the development of the model) were drawn from the light or dark bands on the screen, back to these "new points" along the distance of the slit width. In practice (for everyone else after its' creation), these lines are drawn from the slit to the screen.

Both of these models work, and can be said to be "predictive". They are ad hoc though, and in some way or another, fall short in matching other known qualities of EM waves. If we are allowed to do "whatever" we would like, even more "predictive" models could be produced. It would make very many people happy (myself included), if a predictive model could be created that follows the "rules" of EM waves in general. For one, the "self regeneration", and propagation at c , of the coupled electric and magnetic oscillations. Some mathematical, and geometrical recursive process.

Had Young's experiment NOT been done until the early 20th century, who knows what might have been proposed.

Perhaps __________. .________ slit

---------------------------------------------------------------- screen

where we could account for spreading, intensity, the light and dark bands, and an autopoietic equilateral triangle. I think this would fall short in other places though. It still wouldn't satisfy the questions of WHY, and HOW. That doesn't mean that some people might not find it more pleasing than what we have now. I would still be trying to find a spiral in there somewhere!


ciao!

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Feb 14 2007, 07:17 AM

Hi TRoc, C2, GE, and Everyone,

GE said:

IMO, the idea of wave-particle duality is an outdated and old fashioned notion that
is really misleading and totally inaccurate and should go the way of the
buggy whip and dinosaurs.

Photons are pulses of energy, PERIOD! They originate from source atoms
as energy pulses that propagate as a wave and at some point, if they are absorbed
by an atom, the energy and momentum that they contain increases the energy
state of that atom, at which time energy transfer/conversion takes place. Yes,
I agree that photon waves are force carriers, but that does not make them
"particles" in the true meaning of the word. Particles have mass, photons don't.
If you want to consider an energy wave as a particle, then sound waves, shock
waves, and ocean waves should be particles too. I think that you see my point.

TRoc,

You are tap dancing....good show!

I took your prior post, which I responded to as quoted above, to infer that the
DSE results were significantly affected by the atmosphere. I was pointing out
that the photon DSE results would/should be the same regardless of atmospheric
conditions short of fog. You know as well as I do why electron DSE
experiments are done in vacuum. They collide and react with matter, like air
molecules. Photons can fairly easily propagate thru transparent matter and
electrons can't, due to charge interactions. I'm not aware of a need for
photoelectric experiments to be done in vacuum, since solar cells/ photo cells
work quite well in any non-extreme ambient environment. I am baffled by your
claim that the electrons of the equipment used in the DSE, that operate in vacuum,
will have "problems". I cannot accept this "claim" as you have stated it. The
electrons of the slits and screen will respond the same within an infinitesimal
range.

Disagreement, conversation welcomed,
LL

Hello All,

I am still waiting for someone to offer a conceptualization regarding the results
of the single photon DSE interference experiment and to directly correlate it to
the standard plane wave DSE. I have offered a conceptualization that, if mostly
correct, accounts for the results of both experiments, actually all 3 experiments.

I am finding it difficult to accept the insitu wave cancellation at the screen
argument, that most here seem to support, since it doesn't fit both experiments
nor does it fit the electron interference DSE experimental result.

In order to have a viable and acceptable conceptual model that works, all 3 of
these experiments must have a "common" explanation that works in all
cases.

You basically "know" my explanation. I am waiting for an acceptable alternative
that works.

Any takers?

LL