[acsinuk]

Alan,
You are correct that we must not use languages at all in physics only technical sketches of experiments and their results.

So can any of our esteemed experts point me to an experiment that will prove that electromagnetic massless light energy needs a volume x,y,z, to exist in please.

[alancalverd]

You are correct that we must not use languages at all in physics only technical sketches of experiments and their results.

I never said or even implied that.*
And it is obvious that any observed phenomenon must have taken place within a 3-dimensoinal volume that included the observer.


*However I recall spending a couple of days with some visitors from another national laboratory with whom I had no common spoken language, just engineering drawings and circuit diagrams. A few months later we learned that they had replicated the equipment and confirmed our results. Full marks to the International Standards Organisation for defning not only the vocabulary of physics but also the graphical representation of machines.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I googled video of electron double slit experiment.

The Double Slit Experiment Performed With Electrons

Some interesting comments.

IF YOU CAN'T SHOW THE COMPLETE SET-UP OF THIS EXPERIMENT THIS REALLY TELLS US ... NOTHING.

Out of all the talk on double slit experiments, I have never heard anything about how electrons or light interact with the material of the slits. I am use to using RHEED/LEED (electron diffraction) in semiconductor manufacturing, where the reflection pattern off the atomic latice of a material builds up 1 electron at a time (nothing 'spooky'). Similarly, could the  double-slit be the same with the patterns just being the electron reflection/diffraction off the atomic lattice of the edges of the slit material?
Then you get an ?interference?/build-up envelope from the 2 electron patterns from 2 slits. If it is just electron reflection/diffraction off the atomic lattice of the slit material, then even if one electron at a time, you naturally get a gradual build-up of a reflection/diffraction pattern off the atomic lattice. Nothing mysterious. Maybe no need for some 'spooky' quantum explanation?
Also, on the ?measurement destroys interference pattern? issue, I think it has been shown in recent years (by an Italian group) that when an atom/electron detector is there, usually in front of the slit, it of course disturbs such electron scattering, so the interference pattern changes (it seems if electron has inelastic scattering with detector, pattern changes. If elastic scattering with detector, pattern doesn?t change). Again, for measurement, seems nothing 'spooky', probably like a detector naturally disturbs a tennis ball?s trajectory.
Any papers with experimental evidence of any effects on the electrons from the atomic lattice of the slit material?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/materials/quantum/doubleslit/index.html

Double-slit experiment
Quantum Measurement

You may be familiar with an experiment known as the " double-slit experiment," as it is often introduced at the beginning of quantum-mechanics textbooks. The experimental arrangement can be seen in Fig. 1. Electrons are emitted one by one from the source in the electron microscope. They pass through a device called the "electron biprism", which consists of two parallel plates and a fine filament at the center. The filament is thinner than 1 micron (1/1000 mm) in diameter. Electrons having passed through on both sides of the filament are detected one by one as particles at the detector. This detector was specially modified for electrons from the photon detector produced by Hamamatsu Photonics (PIAS). To our surprise, it could detect even a single electron with almost 100 % detection efficiency.
At the beginning of the experiment, we can see that bright spots begin to appear here and there at random positions (Fig. 2 (a) and (b)). These are electrons. Electrons are detected one by one as particles. As far as these micrographs show, you can be confident that electrons are particles. These electrons were accelerated to 50,000 V, and therefore the speed is about 40 % of the speed of the light, i. e., it is 120,000 km/second. These electrons can go around the earth three times in a second. So, they pass through a one-meter-long electron microscope in 1/100,000,000 of a second. It is all right to think that each electron is detected in an instant after it is emitted.
Interference fringes are produced only when two electrons pass through both sides of the electron biprism simultaneously. If there were two electrons in the microscope at the same time, such interference might happen. But this cannot occur, because there is no more than one electron in the microscope at one time, since only 10 electrons are emitted per second.

Please keep watching the experiment a little longer. When a large number of electrons is accumulated, something like regular fringes begin to appear in the perpendicular direction as Fig. 2(c) shows. Clear interference fringes can be seen in the last scene of the experiment after 20 minutes (Fig. 2(d)). It should also be noted that the fringes are made up of bright spots, each of which records the detection of an electron.
We have reached a mysterious conclusion. Although electrons were sent one by one, interference fringes could be observed. These interference fringes are formed only when electron waves pass through on both sides of the electron biprism at the same time but nothing other than this. Whenever electrons are observed, they are always detected as individual particles. When accumulated, however, interference fringes are formed. Please recall that at any one instant there was at most one electron in the microscope. We have reached a conclusion which is far from what our common sense tells us.

[alancalverd]

Although electrons were sent one by one, interference fringes could be observed. These interference fringes are formed .....

I have my doubts about this phraseology.

Yes, there is a spatially periodic distribution of electrons which can be modelled as the interference of waves,

But whilst it is clear that waves can interfere constructively or destructively, what arrives at the electron detector are single electrons with single charge (no constructive interference) and we do not have a mechanism by which two charges of the same sign or two identical masses can annihilate each other (no destructive interference).

Therefore it is not an interference pattern.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Although electrons were sent one by one, interference fringes could be observed. These interference fringes are formed .....

I have my doubts about this phraseology.

Yes, there is a spatially periodic distribution of electrons which can be modelled as the interference of waves,

But whilst it is clear that waves can interfere constructively or destructively, what arrives at the electron detector are single electrons with single charge (no constructive interference) and we do not have a mechanism by which two charges of the same sign or two identical masses can annihilate each other (no destructive interference).

Therefore it is not an interference pattern.

What phrase do you prefer?
Two electrons can repel each other, causing their absence from a particular position in space and time.
The pattern is affected by the design of the double slit aperture, as well as the detector. If the image of the pattern in previous post is zoomed in, the dots can be seen as somewhat boxy. I think it's a feature of the detector, instead of the electrons.

[acsinuk]

Not sure about electrons in double split experiment.  But for EM light the ordinary and extra-ordinary rays of magnoflux will automatically cancel out on the following cycle thus producing an interference pattern.  If you polarise a laser beam you should get the same pattern. 

[paul cotter]

Magnoflux?? Rings a bell somewhere in the recesses of my mind, maybe it was a nightmare.

[acsinuk]

Have a look at this research into info RAM memory in USA.  I think they are finding that the EM volume of memory is able to be split up into resistive and reactive components in which case a single volume of memory can contain not just upper and lower sideband but maybe up to 16 units of memory depending on the phase angles of ferrous part.
Find the side diagram of "Family of Ferroelectric Memories" at very bottom of article which identifies FeFET, FeRAM, nVcap,   
 BEOL ferro and FEOL ferro.

https://marklapedus.substack.com/p/what-ever-happened-to-next-gen-ferroelectric

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Photon Bunching / Hanbury Brown & Twiss effect

This is the second video about photomultipliers and their use. In this video I set out to measure an effect called "Photon Bunching". Photon bunching is phenomenon characteristic for incoherent light It can for example be used to measure the angular diameter of stars and was discovered by Robert Hanbury Brown and Richard Quintin Twiss in 1954.

Video chapters:
0:00​ Introduction
0:42​ Brief description of coherence
4:01​ Description of the experimental setup
10:17​ Aim of the experiment
11:40​ Main result
12:25​ Explanation and discussion
13:10​ What is a photon?
16:10​ Relation field amplitude / intensity / probability
22:17​ Second order correlation function described
25:23​ The Hanbury Brown & Twiss effect
27:25​ Trying to measure g(2); failure and succss

All wave animations in this video were produced using a Python script supplied by ‪@DiffractionLimited‬​ . Thank you very much Manuel for supplying me with this tool.

Third party imagery and clips:
14:35​ Image standard Model of elementary particles: Source WIkipedia
14:55​ I got the "face slap" clip of a channel named @neilsandwichtv5186. Not sure if this channel indeed is the copyright owner. Contact me if you have more info on this.
13:36​ I used a few very short clips from ‪@ArvinAsh‬​ as illustrations of the particle presentation of light and photons. Arvin makes very high quality content on various scientific subject. But I guess his photon visualizations leave some room for improvement (;-).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the first video.

Using a Photomultiplier to Detect Single Photons

Photomultiplier (PMT) principle, operation and measurements explained.

In the follow-up video, I'll demonstrate an experiment involving single photon measurements using photomultipliers:    ? Photon Bunching / Hanb... 

00:00 Intro and overview
00:30 The photoelectric effect
02:11 Detecting single photons
03:33 How a PMT detects a photon
10:35 How to operate a PMT
17:00 Measurements with a photomultiplier
24:59 Conclusions

[alancalverd]

Therefore it is not an interference pattern.

What phrase do you prefer?

It is the distribution of electrons passing through multiple slits.

Two electrons can repel each other, causing their absence from a particular position in space and time.

but that would occur at random and is just as likely to happen where we observe a maximum as it would at a minimum, so you'd expect to get a continuous blur, not a periodic pattern. And we observe the same pattern with neutrons.

The pattern is affected by the design of the double slit aperture, as well as the detector. If the image of the pattern in previous post is zoomed in, the dots can be seen as somewhat boxy. I think it's a feature of the detector, instead of the electrons.

 If you keep the detector constant, the pattern varies with the number and position of the slits and can be precisely (for a sufficient number of electrons) calculated from those parameters, so it isn't a function of the detector.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is the distribution of electrons passing through multiple slits.

The interference pattern also occurs in single slit experiment, as well as single dot experiment.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

but that would occur at random and is just as likely to happen where we observe a maximum as it would at a minimum, so you'd expect to get a continuous blur, not a periodic pattern. And we observe the same pattern with neutrons.

Although individual detection appears randomly, it follows a regular distribution pattern.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you keep the detector constant, the pattern varies with the number and position of the slits and can be precisely (for a sufficient number of electrons) calculated from those parameters, so it isn't a function of the detector.

The pixels in the detector can be shaped as 2D array of triangles, rectangles, or hexagons. Their size and the distance between individual pixels can also be set intentionally.

[alancalverd]

The pixels in the detector can be shaped as 2D array of triangles, rectangles, or hexagons. Their size and the distance between individual pixels can also be set intentionally.

Or you can use a single detector and move it to detect maxima and minima. It doesn't matter what detector you use, the pattern remains the same. Time was that we used photographic film for  x-ray crystallography, and nowadays mostly use CCD detectors, but the answer hasn't changed. Similarly with electron diffraction patterns.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The pixels in the detector can be shaped as 2D array of triangles, rectangles, or hexagons. Their size and the distance between individual pixels can also be set intentionally.

Or you can use a single detector and move it to detect maxima and minima. It doesn't matter what detector you use, the pattern remains the same. Time was that we used photographic film for  x-ray crystallography, and nowadays mostly use CCD detectors, but the answer hasn't changed. Similarly with electron diffraction patterns.

In low light settings, only one pixel can be activated at one time, regardless of its shape or size. So large pixels will be activated more often than smaller pixels, given the same intensity of light at the same area.

[alancalverd]

So what?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So what?

So it refutes your previous conclusion.

so it isn't a function of the detector.

[alancalverd]

Pixel size has no influence on the distribution pattern, only on your perception of it. Obviously if the periodicity of the pattern is finer than the pixel diameter, you will find it difficult to interpret the periodicity, but it's still there.  Unless you think photons and electrons are psychic and know in advance what they are going to collide with.