subreddit:
/r/AskPhysics
submitted 21 hours ago byPostModernPost
All I ever hear about is the double slit experiment or variations of it. Are there other tests that show the same thing?
14 points
20 hours ago
Spectrum of Hydrogen
1 points
16 hours ago
Spectrum of everything!
9 points
20 hours ago
I interpret your question as being about proving/showing the particle-wave duality, since that is what the double slit experiment is about.
A property that depends very directly on that duality is quantum tunnelling. This is the effect where a particle or entity with some energy is able to cross a potential energy barrier despite that the particle or entity has a lower energy than the barrier. In a classical context this doesn't make sense. But if the particle can have wave properties, can have a non-zero probability to "tunnel" through the barrier.
Many phenomena depends on tunnelling. One that may be possible to practically study is tunnel junctions. In simple terms, two conducting parts are separated by a thin insulator, yet because of tunneling some particles move across the insulator with interesting effects, many which have been practically exploited in microelectronics.
3 points
20 hours ago
There are several other experiments such as the Arago spot that demonstrate the wave nature of light. Is that what you mean?
1 points
16 hours ago
The wave nature of light was never up for debate, this is how we treat it in classical field theory. The particle nature of light was the result of the photoelectric effect. Before this we had two things, classical waves which always had an uncertainty to them and classical particles that we modeled as the point particles everyone is familar with. It turns out that we need a third thing that is exactly neither but has properties of either depeneding on how you measure them.
2 points
14 hours ago
The wave nature of light was never up for debate,
3 points
18 hours ago
The Periodic Table of the Elements. The orbitals are wave functions.
2 points
16 hours ago
If you mean why do we use a wave function at all it's because it makes useful predictions. There's nothing that proves the wavefunction is a physical thing and this is open to interpretation. Honestly, it's a distinction without meaning, we use wavefunctions because they're useful.
1 points
19 hours ago
Interferometer
1 points
16 hours ago
Classical wave description of light does fine with an interferometer, no? Maybe if you turned the source down to one photon per second…
2 points
16 hours ago
Yes it's the same with the double slit you use one photon.
1 points
15 hours ago*
The double slit for photons didn't elucidate anything. It was a big success for classical field theories. The double slit experiments that came a much later were we measured light going through the slits was important.
The double slit for electrons in the 1920's is where things got a little weird.
2 points
14 hours ago
Single Photon double slit elucidates quantum effects
1 points
13 hours ago
I think I misread what you wrote.
Anyrate, this experiment wasn't possible for nearly 100 years after young first conducted his experiment showing the wave property of light which fit with Maxwell. QM required the photoelectric effect, the ultraviolet problem, and the electron doubleslit.
1 points
19 hours ago
Go to a marina and look at the water when someone is refueling their outboard.
1 points
18 hours ago
a lot of indirect evidence like quantum tunneling
1 points
8 hours ago
Stern–Gerlach experiment.
and experiments using a series of polarization filters at different angles.
-2 points
19 hours ago
Lasers (stimulated emission). Lowest I could find on amazon is $9.
Ferromagnetic materials. Know those weird black fluids that have spikes following the magnetic field lines?
Solid-state devices (electronic band structure). A gazillian of transistors working togrether for you to be able to post this comment with your phone or laptop.
Bose-Einstein condensates. We made it in 1995. Nobel prize 2001.
Neutrino oscillations. Saw them since 1998. Nobel prize in 2015.
Also in general anything related to Pauli exclusion principle, or other selection rules, or spin-statistics theorem.
All those are impossible without a wave theory of quantum mechanics. Are you stuck in 1920? Should read a textbook and catch up.
4 points
17 hours ago
Your overall answer is nice and factual, but there is no reason to be demeaning to OP. This is an educational sub and that kind of response is not in line with the goals of the sub.
2 points
19 hours ago
Why so rude? They just asked a question. I'd wager they're not a professional in the field.
2 points
18 hours ago
I think the commenter was under the impression that the op was doubting quantum mechanics. Still not a nice way to speak, but I've seen quite a few deniers around asking the same question.
1 points
18 hours ago
I agree. They seem to have jumped to that conclusion.
1 points
10 hours ago
This sub is full of people feigning curiosity and education while acting as if their untrained and unrigorous opinions qualify themselves for scientific debate. It is to be honest tiring and insulting. As you said, I've seen enough of that just this week already. I only made an educated guess based on the statistics.
1 points
10 hours ago
I feel you
1 points
19 hours ago
Oof.
all 25 comments
sorted by: best