Double Slit in Mirror?

That experiment is under the general category of the original ''Young's Experiment'', a version of which I improvised, during my High School days, back in the early '60's, where it resulted in only two (interference-shadows), after having traversed across the diagonal of our garage floor, due to only rudimentary equipment available at the time.

Said experiment implies that, in order to result in evidence of a physical wave, there must be a physical medium in order to physically convey the light from the light source, through the two vertical slits, and on to register on a appropriate background (white cardboard, in my case). That is, that light energy therefore has the characteristic of a physical fluid, on both sides of the slits...

... and that the Interference shadows are a nessesary product of light passing through two vertical slits onto an appropriate surface, sufficiently distant, without reflecting off any mirror, as was demonstrated more formally in Physics class, at the time.

There is no physical medium in a vacuum.

My question is if the photon is a wave before it enters the slit,unless the total wave enters the slits,there will be scattering from the slits visible in the mirror.

Which brings to mind:Why not tiny circular holes instead of slits, ,at different diameters corresponding to the wavelength or multiples of the wavelength of the light ?

If there is no scattering of the wave,then the transition must take place within or at the exit of the slit.

When observed,it changes to a particle.

This may not work because viewing the result in a mirror may be still determined to be "observing"; Sort of like observing the state of the cat in the box via a mirror.

I wonder if anyone has tried the double slit experiment using a mirrored surface?

Assume the slits are in a very thin metal mirror (no glass involved to reflect).

I'm betting that what reflects would the same as the diffraction pattern behind the slits except in the center. From the front, you would have dark slits surrounded by light instead of bright slits surrounded by dark as in the back.

The reflection in the mirror is the same as if the slits were obstacles and the light source were behind the mirror.

"In physics, Babinet's principle^[1] states that the diffraction pattern from an opaque body is identical to that from a hole of the same size and shape except for the overall forward beam intensity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babinet%27s_principle

Another way to look at is that the diffraction pattern is the 2D Fourier power transform of the slits or obstacles. The difference between slits and obstacles is a reversal in sign (light slits, dark obstacles) plus a constant value (overall illumination brighter for obstacles than slits). Overall illumination is the "DC" component of the Fourier transform. Reversing the sign changes the phase of the Fourier Transform by 180 degrees but the amplitude remains the same.

The result is that the diffraction pattern looks the same except in the center where the obstacle case (mirror reflection) is brighter Here is an example:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/14637387/

Note that the diffraction spectra are the same except the obstacle case (anti-holes) has a brighter central peak.

If none of the energy of the wave is reflected, the transition from a particle to a wave occurs inside the slit itself instead of before the slit.

Interesting idea, but I suspect you will see the diffraction pattern of the "anti-slits", same as the slits but brighter in the center.

I would still like to see the results from a real test of this.

I can find plenty of images of a double slit,but not slits with a first surface mirror,(which I should have stated clearly in my original posting).

Nor can I find any examples of double round holes.

The reason I say holes is because if the waves are in circular(spherical) form it should be different results than the slits.

Would observing the reflection of scattered light affect the transition from a particle to a wave?

Go from 2 slits to many slits, a.k.a., a diffraction grating. There are both transmission types and reflective types. Both work the same.

Are you saying that the observation of a diffraction grating will change from a wave to

a particle when observed?

I am talking about the change at a quantum level of a single photon or electron.

I will have to digest this a bit....

Are you saying that the observation of a diffraction grating will change from a wave to

a particle when observed?

Like everyone else, I don't know how it can be the way it is.

All of our theories are based on models that are analogs of things we are familiar with, particles or waves, for example. Photons, electrons, and other quantum objects behave differently from any model based on our everyday life experiences.

Wave-particle duality is pretty tame compared with superposition and entanglement. The math describes it, but it's hard to imagine how it could be that way.

Don't worry, be happy, shut up and calculate!

I do not worry,but I do chew my cud on things that do not digest right away.
And what I see does not calculate.
This issue keeps coming up.
It appears that a particle cannot be observed in "real time" only after the fact,by observing the result.
So if a particle's state is observed via a fiber optic cable that is 1 light year long,and the observer is at the other end of the cable,when does the particle change state?
At the "local" instant of passing through the slot,or in the remote observer's time,1 year later.
Or,if there are 2 observers,does each experience the same result,but at different times,or are the observations entangled,and they will see the results simultaneously?
This does not keep me awake at night,I am happy and I can accept that which I do not understand,but I still wonder about it...

Physics has not isolated a particle of potential energy either, but it's all around us, whether we ''rise'' to any particular height, or not...

Rixter, I award you a (virtual) ''GL'' for an (actual) good link...

Physics has not isolated a particle of potential energy

Here is the way I understand it...

Potential energy is energy stored in a force field.

It takes energy to create a magnetic field. If you have 2 magnets and you separate them (adding energy), the added potential energy actually results in increasing the strength of the magnetic field.

Exactly the same thing is true for an electric field. Separating unlike charges requires energy, and this additional potential energy stored in the electric field actually increases the electric field strength.

Spring force is actually electromagnetic force on a molecular level (stress force). Potential energy is actually additional energy stored in the spring.

A gravitational field has negative energy. Lifting a mass to an altitude makes the energy stored in the gravitational field less negative (weaker).

If all the mass of the earth were launched in rockets to the edge of the universe, the energy required would be added to the negative energy of the gravitational field until it increased to zero, when the gravitational field strength would be zero.

Other fields (strong and weak force) would also store potential energy.

So, I guess a particle for potential energy would be whatever particle is associated with the force field where this "potential energy" is being stored.

You did not answer my question about the diffraction grating:Does it change function when observed?If not,it is not a good example of a mirrored double slit,which was my original question.

A theory is a story that begins:"This behaves as if ..."

There is much we do not understand,but that should not require quench our curiosity.

However, there is much dogma and ego-equity in modern science that impedes progress and minimizes or ridicules anyone for daring to question the plot of the story.

If we stop questioning current theories,there is no hope for progress.

You did not answer my question about the diffraction grating:Does it change function when observed?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking whether light changes from a wave to a particle inside the slit, or passing through a diffraction grating, my answer is I don't think so. You can get the same kind of diffraction pattern between a light source and the same source reflected in a mirror (Lloyd's Mirror Experiment).

A source and its reflection is basically the same thing as a single light source passing through two slits.

Simplistically, if ''E = mc^2'' is the entire equation, then energy-E must translate to a physical quantity of masss-mc^2, and mass-mc^2 must similarly translate to a physical quantity of energy-E. We just have not yet come to fully understand the (dimensions), and/or (units), of mass-energy, or of energy-mass, enough to really translate what either of them actually mean. As we used to say, in earlier days, ''the onus is upon us'' (to figure it out) ... through the OP's actually physical experiment, and not just a dilettante-edly dumping of a thought-experiment on the rest of us relatively (innocent bystanders) ? ...

In short, if the OP really wants to know, (he/she/other) should first perform their own experiment, and then, tell us what the findings were, and stop trying to get us to do the (mental-field-work)...Unless we get paid to do so....

If you will send me a photon generator capable of emitting one photon at a time,I would be glad to conduct my own experiment.

I only ask for an opinion on this matter,I do not require anyone to answer it.

I have searched for the answer diligently online,and have not found the answer, and I figured someone here might have encountered it somewhere.

If I were not a mature and diplomatic person,I would tell you to not worry, shut up and leave,but since I am,I will not say that...

Thanks to everyone that so generously contributed their wisdom and knowledge to me on this matter.

... but you still could have at least a made crude sketch of what you were asking in the first place, but have not yet shown us even one such sketch, so it must not be that important to you, after all...

You did not answer my question about the diffraction grating:Does it change function when observed?

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking whether light changes from a wave to a particle inside the slit, or passing through a diffraction grating, my answer is I don't think so. You can get the same kind of diffraction pattern between a light source and the same source reflected in a mirror (Lloyd's Mirror Experiment).

A source and its reflection is basically the same thing as a single light source passing through two slits.

Going back to my first post,I am referring to the well known double slit experiment wherein the photon creates an interference pattern when not observed,then the interference pattern disappears when one observes it.

In an effort to resolve where the transition occurs between particle and wave,I was suggesting taking the original double slit experiment and putting the slit in a first surface mirror.

If the width of the slits are shorter,but the length is longer than the wavelength of the light,there would be some light that did not go through the slits and might be reflected back to a detector.

I am pretty sure that this has been tried,but I have found no reference to it.

Perhaps this question is not answerable at this time,or I am too thick to understand it at this time.

The diffraction filter is not what my original question pertained to.

This is the closest I have found. It's a simulation, I think, not an animation.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Double_slit_experiment.webm

"Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't!" A photon apparently can exhibit both wave and particle properties, and which pops up depends on the experiment and the observer, says quantum theory.

But I wonder if humans can ever have the ability to comprehend the quantum world. I suspect there are many layers of reality yet to be found. And maybe we'll never have the tools to explore them. I mean, we can do tests and log results, but even Einstein rejected the very behaviors his own work predicted. Of course we are hopefully a century wiser, but "spooky action at a distance" makes my puny brain hurt.

If we could make a tube of entangled particles we might open up an as yet unobserved dimension...

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/quantum-entanglement-and-wormholes

https://www.livescience.com/physicists-entangle-15-trillion-hot-atoms.html

If a frog had wings.....

We are indeed smarter,but sadly,not wiser.

Perhaps I did not explain my original question very clearly.

I am not very good at explaining things sometimes.

In the standard single/slit double slit experiment, the double slit acts like a particle when it is observed.When it is not directly observed,it behaves like a wave.

So my question boils down to:At which point does it change from a wave to a particle when observed?

If you use only a single electron or photon,you get the same result,an interference pattern or no interference pattern.

By creating the slits in a first surface mirrored material it should indicate if the wave is created outside of the slot by some of the wave being reflected,or inside of the slot,or when exiting the slot.

If the inside edges of the slot are also mirrored perhaps the transition could be detected or measured.

Has this experiment been tried?

I do not know much about quantum effects and I am trying to learn more so pardon this very elementary question.

If you could blink a single emitter light source at 1/2 period of the wavelength........you would see that the two slit pattern is cause by intermittence, not particles. The pattern result is from the addition of intermittences. A light bulb or a laser is NOT a single emitter source.

Light is the very worse thing one can use to measure c. It's a multiple emitter source....a flux source. It's like measuring the velocity of one drop from a shower head. To understand EM radiation......use one radio "wave". One drop. Do you know how to emit one "wave" or if you prefer, one "photon", from a radio antenna? I have never met one engineer that can do this.

Have you any electronic radio equipment? You can see this for yourself. The first thing you will realize is that "light" does not alternate. The propagation is static. Only the absorber "alternates". The second thing you will notice is that the emission has no duration. It's an instant event. It's an intermittent instant strobe.......not at all like a sound or a vibration.....or any media wave. A completely different dynamic.

The duration of emission is instant. The propagation has a duration of 1/2 period. IF the absorber has a relative velocity of zero, relative to the emitter, the absorber has a 1/2 period of inducement........then another 1/2 period of relaxation. Giving you your wave.

Light from an incandescent lamp is pretty much of a mess with many wavelengths and directions. But light from a laser is both collimated and spectrally pure. It oscillates at hundreds of trillion times per second and makes a very good diffraction pattern.

The quantum of electromagnetic energy (photon) is proportional to frequency, E=hf, where h is Planck's constant. The higher the frequency, the more it acts like a particle and less like a wave. A photon from a 100MHz FM radio station would have an energy of about 4.1357 × 10⁻⁷ eV. or 6.6261216198705e-19 Watt sec, far below the ambient noise level. But photons of electromagnetic energy for ultraviolet light and higher frequencies have enough energy to break up molecules.

Light from a laser has multiple phase. This is because of different length paths from the laser emitters. It's a flux of phase. The "phase" is the start time of the duration of inducement.

Light has a number of properties. The two basic properties are intensity and duration. You call the duration.....frequency. A duration is 1/2 period of "frequency". The intensity sets the number of absorbers. The intensity decays with distance from emitter.

The duration of the light has two components, but does not decrease with distance, like the intensity does. This is the "photon" part of light. This duration induces two torques. These two torques, or two alignments are induced in/on the absorber. An electrical field alignment and torque and a magnetic alignment and torque. These torques have a rate. A duration. The quicker the duration, the more energy.

It's the instant emission and the intermittence of light that results in our measurements......................................................WITHOUT local time.

No probability, no randomness and no fairy tales are allowed in real science. Science was meant to eliminate randomness and probability. That why I quit studying modern science......randomness and probability as concepts will keep you ignorant. And it allows all possibilities and solutions.

There is only one solution. And it is sure and square. If you watch one photon...you will realize this too.

Our(your) modern science bases all science and everything else on Maxwell's light. And it's all wrong. How can modern science even guess what a particle is? The duality of a particle is meaningless. Because a light waveform is meaningless.

Mass and matter is a real substance. You call it charge, but don't understand it. Because charge has been incorrectly defined. It's not positive and negative.......it's left handed and right handed. Charge is not a property of mass, mass is a property of charge. ALL physical properties come from charge. Charge is the only physical entity in this cosmos. ALL motion comes from it.

Charge is the unity of all. Parson's Magneton showed not only where mass comes from, but where all physical properties come from. Including the dynamic of emission. This was before neutrons were discovered. So, be sure to study the updated model. Don't allow math to disprove this model, nature does not use pi for rotations. pi is 2D. Nature uses 3D rotations. pi is adjustable and greater than 3.14.

Nature's rotations are like stripes on a hula hoop. Helical.

Neither particle nature nor wave nature explain all phenomena of light. This page sums the evidence on both sides...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

Maybe it looks something like this?

To avoid confusion, ahem, think of photons as particles whose distribution behaves statistically .

Now in the slits situation the bulk of the photons carry straight on and form a strongly illuminated line, or circle (if passing throgh a circular hole.)

Now what happens at the edge of the slit ? Well we certainly don't have a hard edge at the atomic level, in fact it is mostly space with atoms that interact with the photon, almost equivalent to when photons pass through a transparent medium, with their velocity being varied, and so the photons are spread out fanwise, and that distribution can be interpreted as if it were a wave falling on the slit(s)