[mxplxxx (OP)]

In the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics a photon fired at a wall with two slits in it appears to behave as a wave. Is this at all dependent on where the photon is fired from? For example, If the photon is fired at the part of the wall between the two slits, is it absorbed by the wall? If it is always fired at the middle of a slit, does it always pass through that slit? What is the wavefunction of the photon in the experiment? What does the wave in the experiment look like?

[RobC]

Five questions there. I have never seen a plausible answer to most of them.

[Bored chemist]

Because of diffraction effects the beam is never "narrow" compared to the slits' separation.

You can , if you want, set the particles moving from very close to one of the slits or to the wall between them.
The maths is more complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Near-field_diffraction

I have never seen a plausible answer to most of them.

Did you look in the right places?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Because of diffraction effects the beam is never "narrow" compared to the slits' separation.

You can , if you want, set the particles moving from very close to one of the slits or to the wall between them.
The maths is more complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Near-field_diffraction

I have never seen a plausible answer to most of them.

Did you look in the right places?

I agree with Robc, I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of this experiment. And I have looked high and low. Given you have not provided any references, it would seem you are in the same boat. I am currently reading a book "Farewell To Reality" by Jim Baggott that criticizes much of modern Physics theory. Incredibly he starts the book by talking about the double slit experiment as if it were a proven basis for quantum physics. We need a modern version of the experiment that answers my questions. The fact that we don't have one may indicate that Quantum physics has been founded on an urban myth.

[Bored chemist]

Given you have not provided any references,

This

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Near-field_diffraction

is a reference.

It may be that you

looked high and low.

but you didn't find anything because you didn't recognise it when it was staring you in the face.

Incredibly he starts the book by talking about the double slit experiment as if it were a proven basis for quantum physics.

That's because it is.
It's a simple experiment that demonstrates the nature of light.

We need a modern version of the experiment that answers my questions.

If you really think so, then do the experiment (for the zillionth time)
Thomas Young managed to do it in 1801
It's a high-school physics experiment today.
What is stopping you?
Are you scared it might work?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I am after answers to my questions and this is not happening, Beats me why! I am talking about a single photon, not electromagnetic waves which are not quantum entities.

[PmbPhy]

In the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics a photon fired at a wall with two slits in it appears to behave as a wave. Is this at all dependent on where the photon is fired from? For example, If the photon is fired at the part of the wall between the two slits, is it absorbed by the wall? If it is always fired at the middle of a slit, does it always pass through that slit? What is the wavefunction of the photon in the experiment? What does the wave in the experiment look like?

One can use a laser beam aimed at a double sit, which can be made by using an opaque tape in a sheet of glass. Aim the been at the center of the slits. Make sure that the slits are close enough, i.e. less than half a wave length. If a photon hits the slit wall itself then its not considered with the data collected on the other side of the slit. This won't happen if the slits are close enough to each other.

A wave function of a photon is an exponential function. I forget the form it has.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In the famous double slit experiment of quantum physics a photon fired at a wall with two slits in it appears to behave as a wave. Is this at all dependent on where the photon is fired from? For example, If the photon is fired at the part of the wall between the two slits, is it absorbed by the wall? If it is always fired at the middle of a slit, does it always pass through that slit? What is the wavefunction of the photon in the experiment? What does the wave in the experiment look like?

One can use a laser beam aimed at a double sit, which can be made by using an opaque tape in a sheet of glass. Aim the been at the center of the slits. Make sure that the slits are close enough, i.e. less than half a wave length. If a photon hits the slit wall itself then its not considered with the data collected on the other side of the slit. This won't happen if the slits are close enough to each other.

A wave function of a photon is an exponential function. I forget the form it has.

Thx. Nowhere can I find the wave function of a photon. Strange.

[Bored chemist]

Nowhere can I find the wave function of a photon. Strange.

Eqn 58 here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/11/414

If it turns out that you don't understand it, that just tells us there was no point in you looking for it.

[Bored chemist]

I am after answers to my questions and this is not happening,

And, when you get answers you simply ignore them,

[PmbPhy]

Thx. Nowhere can I find the wave function of a photon. Strange.

Not really. A photon is a relativistic particle and not fully treated in quantum mechanics but in quantum electrodynamics. See QED by Richard Feynman and you can read all about it. The state vector is found in Quantum Mechanics II: A Second Course on Quantum Theory, page 341.

[PmbPhy]

If it turns out that you don't understand it, that just tells us there was no point in you looking for it.

Total nonsense. If a member doesn't understand it then they should look for it to learn about it.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Nowhere can I find the wave function of a photon. Strange.

Eqn 58 here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/11/414

If it turns out that you don't understand it, that just tells us there was no point in you looking for it.

I have no intention of trying to follow complex maths (although I could, I have maths at university level standard), I just want an equation, but it seem that such a beast does not exist and if that is the case how can it be hypothesized that a photon exists as a wave in the double slit experiment?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

One can use a laser beam aimed at a double sit, which can be made by using an opaque tape in a sheet of glass.

This would not result in a single photon at a time would it?

[PmbPhy]

One can use a laser beam aimed at a double sit, which can be made by using an opaque tape in a sheet of glass.

This would not result in a single photon at a time would it?

It depends on whether you put a filter right out of laser to filter (polarizer) photons out. Theoretically you could reduce the rate to one at a time.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Capture.PNG (522.74 kB . 2950x1840 - viewed 5796 times)Here is a good video of the experiment.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U
also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzVT56ZPLEo

The problem with maths is that it has difficulty describing complex systems. These days I look for computer simulations, particularly using using HSMs (hierarchical state machines), to understand physics. Because I am a software developer, I can examine the code of such systems to gain a deeper understanding of them. A HSM of a hydrogen atom is illustrated below:

[Bored chemist]

I just want an equation, but it seem that such a beast does not exist

What is your problem?
There is an equation.
I cited it for you.
And now you pretend it doesn't exist.

I have no intention of trying to follow complex maths

So, you want stuff, but are not prepared to do any work.
How well would that work out anywhere else in life?

This would not result in a single photon at a time would it?

It does if you move the laser far enough away from the slits.

The experiment has been done. you are welcome to do it again, but what's the point? The outcome won't change.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

BoredChemist, life would likely be much kinder to you i f you concentrated on the questions, not the personalities. We are here to help each other, not criticize. You may be less bored (depressed?) if you make this transition.

LIke Einstein, I don't need maths to understand the universe. The hideous complexity of maths in modern physics comes about because the concepts are difficult to translate into maths. The concepts came before the maths and this is what I am interested in.

[Bored chemist]

BoredChemist, life would likely be much kinder to you i f you concentrated on the questions

I'm hardly going to take advice on where to focus my attentions from someone who doesn't recognise that the question was already answered.

Now, given that I already told you what the wave function is, why are you still saying

I just want an equation, but it seem that such a beast does not exist

The concepts came before the maths and this is what I am interested in.

OK, so, you want an equation; but not maths.

Do you see how that might be a problem?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

OK, so, you want an equation; but not maths.

Do you see how that might be a problem?

No, tell me why it may be a problem and define problem in this instance.

And tell me again pls, what is the wave function for a proton.