# wavicle: an old topic

#### neila9876

After the electron passes through the detector and before it hits on the screen, we can use wave function to denote it too. The probability does not vanish.
Situation might be a bit more complicated. But what obvious is that the wave characteristic (information created in the slits) does be disturbed by the physical interaction of the detectors. This kind of physical interaction should be electromagnetic. So, logically, the wave characteristic (information created in the slits) results in the interference / diffraction, no matter what exactly it is, in the case of without detectors actually has something to do with electromagnetic interaction. 呵呵

#### Woody

Without following through the maths, (and I am far too lazy for that)
All I can say is that surely an interference pattern must be different from the superposition of two (or more) diffraction patterns
otherwise would that not be clearly indicated in all the text books...

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
You need to get a new membership over there. Your account here won't follow you over there.

-Dan

#### Woody

I think that it is not correct to consider the wave characteristic of QM objects in the same way we think of the properties we see in macroscopic objects.
The situation the QM object finds itself in allows a variety of different behaviors, each with certain probabilities of them occurring.
The strange thing is that rather than one possibility occurring on one occasion, and another on a different occasion
all possibilities seem to be explored on every occasion.
My interpretation is that the wave characteristic arises from the mathematics which describes the way in which the various possibilities are combined to produce the overall possibility of the final outcome.
This mathematics is the same as (or very similar to) that which is used to describe the way in which waves interact.

#### neila9876

@Woody :
I saw the double slits experiment on web rather than in text book. It is a vedio animation. The funny point is that the picture shows the electron seperates into two parts when it passes through the slits, and after that, merge again and goes ahead as a single one...What a joke. If it can seperates into two parts, why not just go ahead as two particles?

#### neila9876

@Woody :
No matter it is due to "all possible routes" or"all possibilities", "every occasion" or other what reasons that make one electron passes through two slits, why it at last creats only one tiny point on the screen? Honey in slits?

#### neila9876

More detailed:
No matter it's single slit or double slits, diffraction or interference, the occasion of nonzero possibility of appearance on the screen is not sole. But actually one electron at last creats only one tiny point on the screen. Why?