- #1
rodsika
- 279
- 2
Hi, Is it possible to set up a double slit experiment where the numbers of
particles being emitted can be counted and see if it is equal to the numbers
detected at the screen?
The particles should be Buckyball or other molecules where the energy can be
made large compared to single electrons.
Has this been done already or can you propose of one?
This is to test the QFT Interpretation of QM proposed by Dr. von Neumaier where
there are no particles but only fields and they don't collapse. So a buckyball
field emitted can trigger many electrons simultaneously. Note that most of our
detection events use electrons in the screen. So we assume that the one electron
triggered is the one hit by the original buckyball. But if the particle counts
vary. Then the field ontology (and no collapse) is correct. This basically means
one buckyball can produce multiple hits at different parts of the detector. But if
the counts are perfectly matched even if the energy of the emitted field is enough to
trigger many electrons simultaneously, then particle ontology is correct.
particles being emitted can be counted and see if it is equal to the numbers
detected at the screen?
The particles should be Buckyball or other molecules where the energy can be
made large compared to single electrons.
Has this been done already or can you propose of one?
This is to test the QFT Interpretation of QM proposed by Dr. von Neumaier where
there are no particles but only fields and they don't collapse. So a buckyball
field emitted can trigger many electrons simultaneously. Note that most of our
detection events use electrons in the screen. So we assume that the one electron
triggered is the one hit by the original buckyball. But if the particle counts
vary. Then the field ontology (and no collapse) is correct. This basically means
one buckyball can produce multiple hits at different parts of the detector. But if
the counts are perfectly matched even if the energy of the emitted field is enough to
trigger many electrons simultaneously, then particle ontology is correct.