- #1
fluidistic
Gold Member
- 3,923
- 261
I've read on page 107 of the pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...C52141B?doi=10.1.1.205.6529&rep=rep1&type=pdf that
1: We do not try to detect the electron passing through the slits, this leads to an interference pattern, call it of type 1.
2: We try to detect the electron (by using the presence of 1 atom as apparatus, as the paper mentions), but we fail to detect it. This leads to an interference pattern, but of a different type than type 1, call it type 2.
3: We try to detect the electron and we're successful. In this case, there is no interference pattern.
My main question is, what is the difference between the interference patterns of type 1 and type 2?
What's going on with the wavefunction of the electron when we try to detect it but we fail? In that case the wavefunction does not collapse into an eigenstate I suppose, but we still modified it simply because the atom acts as a perturbator potential? Is it just as simple as that?
. Thus it seems that there are three different interference patterns.Van Kampen said:the apparatus influences the electron even without detecting it. The interference pattern we obtained by selecting the undetected electrons is not quite the same as the one obtained when no attempt is made to detect them.
1: We do not try to detect the electron passing through the slits, this leads to an interference pattern, call it of type 1.
2: We try to detect the electron (by using the presence of 1 atom as apparatus, as the paper mentions), but we fail to detect it. This leads to an interference pattern, but of a different type than type 1, call it type 2.
3: We try to detect the electron and we're successful. In this case, there is no interference pattern.
My main question is, what is the difference between the interference patterns of type 1 and type 2?
What's going on with the wavefunction of the electron when we try to detect it but we fail? In that case the wavefunction does not collapse into an eigenstate I suppose, but we still modified it simply because the atom acts as a perturbator potential? Is it just as simple as that?