If we steer two electrons toward a screen, do we see the interference pattern? Do electron waves combine to produce an interference pattern? In this situation, how does the wavefunction look?
2
-
$\begingroup$ This question is unclear. $\endgroup$– my2ctsCommented Jun 15 at 9:55
-
$\begingroup$ It seems to be clear to the people who answered. $\endgroup$– iVenkyCommented Jun 16 at 0:46
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
It depends on what you mean by 'screen' and the context of the experiment. In a cathode ray tube, like those used in older televisions, electrons are directed at a phosphorescent screen, and their paths can be altered by magnetic fields via the Lorentz force, affecting the displayed image. However, this is not a quantum interference effect but a manipulation of the electron beam's trajectory.
In contrast, if you're referring to quantum mechanics, such as in a double-slit experiment using electrons, then yes, electrons do exhibit wave-like properties and can create an interference pattern on a detection screen. This pattern emerges over time as many electrons pass through the slits and interfere with themselves, demonstrating their wave-particle duality.
-
$\begingroup$ Yes with themselves … but more modernly they are guided by the em field. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 12 at 9:00
-
$\begingroup$ @PhysicsDave Do you mean then that in fact EM fields created by electrons interfere with each other and not the electrons? $\endgroup$– Radek DCommented Jun 13 at 8:13
-
$\begingroup$ @RadekD Yes all the electrons in the apparatus contribute to the field, excited electrons in the electrode already affect the field even before emission. The field rules, the electrons are dumb. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13 at 15:28
-
$\begingroup$ Well, not that dumb, they are the source of the field. Interesting, because this means (if understand correctly) electron's wave nature is really its electromagnetic field nature... Please correct me, it is disturbing... $\endgroup$– Radek DCommented Jun 13 at 15:49
-
$\begingroup$ @RadekD the em field is never directly observed we only see photons when absorbed by atoms. The em field is everywhere. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15 at 9:06
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
No matter how many electrons you send, the interference pattern only appears when the cumulative total of all the individual electron strikes are viewed. Each electron only hits the detector in one spot. The same behavior is observed for photons when this is done with light.
-
$\begingroup$ Correct, then you see the interference pattern just like double slit experiment. Is that correct? $\endgroup$– iVenkyCommented Jun 12 at 3:50
-
1$\begingroup$ I may not be following your question clearly. Are you asking about two electrons approaching a screen in the absence of a barrier with slits? $\endgroup$– RC_23Commented Jun 12 at 3:58
-
$\begingroup$ I just realized interference is not possible in this case, as there are no slits. $\endgroup$– iVenkyCommented Jun 12 at 15:36
-
$\begingroup$ @iVenky it’s possible if your electrons are emitted from 2 emitters in close proximity if the emitters are correlated. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 12 at 19:13
-
$\begingroup$ @RC_23 even one electron you can bet where it lands because it’s a probability distribution. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 12 at 19:15
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
If 1000 scientists each did the experiment with only one electron when they get together to combine results they would see the pattern.
The electron just goes where the EM field tells it to. The field has resonant properties.
-
1$\begingroup$ This is not an answer to the question. The question is asking about two electrons passing through simultaneously. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13 at 9:54
-
1$\begingroup$ This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13 at 9:54
-
$\begingroup$ @VincentThacker maybe not an answer but just trying to clear up the one vs many electrons confusion. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 13 at 15:37
-
$\begingroup$ @VincentThacker maybe I should make it a comment? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15 at 9:09
-
$\begingroup$ Yes, that is what comments are for. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22 at 19:56