Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Historical Background
3. Classical Wave Behavior
4. Young’s Original Experiment
5. Single-Photon and Single-Electron Double-Slit Experiments
6. Interference Patterns and Quantum Superposition
7. Quantum Mechanical Description
8. Probability Amplitudes and the Born Rule
9. Which-Path Information and Wavefunction Collapse
10. Complementarity and Bohr’s Interpretation
11. Delayed-Choice Experiment
12. Quantum Eraser Variants
13. The Double-Slit as a Test of Reality
14. Experimental Realizations with Matter
15. Implications for Quantum Technology
16. Conclusion

---

1. Introduction

The double-slit experiment is perhaps the most iconic and revealing demonstration of quantum mechanics. It shows that even individual particles, such as photons or electrons, can create interference patterns — a hallmark of wave behavior — yet also arrive as discrete impacts. This paradox encapsulates the mystery of wave-particle duality and the role of observation in quantum mechanics.

---

2. Historical Background

• Thomas Young (1801): first demonstrated interference of light using two slits, supporting the wave theory of light
• With the advent of quantum mechanics, the experiment took on deeper significance
• Repeated with electrons, neutrons, atoms, and even large molecules like buckyballs

---

3. Classical Wave Behavior

When classical waves (e.g., water, sound, or light) pass through two slits:

• They interfere constructively and destructively
• Create a pattern of alternating bright and dark bands (fringes) on a screen

This is wave interference, and it’s well described by Huygens’ principle and the wave equation.

---

4. Young’s Original Experiment

Young’s setup:

• A monochromatic light source
• A barrier with two narrow slits
• A screen to observe resulting light patterns

Interference pattern is governed by:

\[
d \sin \theta = m \lambda, \quad m \in \mathbb{Z}
\]

Where:

• \( d \) is slit separation
• \( \theta \) is angle of the fringe
• \( \lambda \) is the wavelength

---

5. Single-Photon and Single-Electron Double-Slit Experiments

Quantum versions of the experiment send one particle at a time through the slits.

Observations:

• No pattern appears initially
• As many particles accumulate, an interference pattern emerges
• Each particle acts as if it interferes with itself

This behavior is inexplicable by classical mechanics.

---

6. Interference Patterns and Quantum Superposition

Quantum theory suggests that a particle can exist in a superposition of going through both slits simultaneously:

\[
|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|\text{slit 1}\rangle + |\text{slit 2}\rangle)
\]

The resulting pattern is a consequence of interference between these probability amplitudes.

---

7. Quantum Mechanical Description

Wavefunction for two slits:

\[
\psi(x) = \psi_1(x) + \psi_2(x)
\]

Probability distribution on the screen:

\[
P(x) = |\psi(x)|^2 = |\psi_1(x) + \psi_2(x)|^2
\]

This includes a cross-term that causes interference:

\[
P(x) = |\psi_1(x)|^2 + |\psi_2(x)|^2 + 2 \text{Re}[\psi_1^*(x) \psi_2(x)]
\]

---

8. Probability Amplitudes and the Born Rule

Born’s rule connects wavefunctions to physical outcomes:

\[
P(x) = |\psi(x)|^2
\]

This gives the probability of detecting a particle at location \( x \). The interference pattern is a probability distribution built over many trials.

---

9. Which-Path Information and Wavefunction Collapse

If a detector is placed to determine which slit the particle passes through:

• The interference pattern disappears
• Particle behaves classically

This shows that observation affects outcome and is interpreted as wavefunction collapse.

---

10. Complementarity and Bohr’s Interpretation

Bohr’s complementarity principle states:

• Particles exhibit wave-like or particle-like behavior depending on measurement setup
• Not both at the same time
• Measurement influences the physical reality

---

11. Delayed-Choice Experiment

John Wheeler’s delayed-choice version:

• Decision to observe which-path information is made after the particle passes the slits
• Outcome still conforms to the later measurement
• Suggests that future measurement influences past behavior

Challenges classical notions of causality.

---

12. Quantum Eraser Variants

These experiments “erase” which-path information after detection:

• Restores interference pattern retroactively
• Emphasizes that it’s not just the act of measurement, but the availability of information that determines behavior

---

13. The Double-Slit as a Test of Reality

The experiment challenges:

• Realism: particles have definite properties before measurement
• Locality: no faster-than-light influence
• Determinism: outcomes are probabilistic

It remains a powerful testbed for foundational questions in quantum theory.

---

14. Experimental Realizations with Matter

Double-slit interference has been demonstrated with:

• Electrons
• Neutrons
• Atoms
• Molecules (C60 fullerenes)

Shows that wave-particle duality scales with complexity and mass.

---

15. Implications for Quantum Technology

• Quantum cryptography relies on interference and measurement collapse
• Quantum computing uses superposition and entanglement
• Matter-wave interferometry in gravitational wave detection and inertial navigation

The double-slit experiment is a pedagogical and experimental cornerstone.

---

16. Conclusion

The double-slit experiment is more than a clever setup — it is a window into the soul of quantum mechanics. It demonstrates that reality at small scales is governed by probability, superposition, and the act of measurement. Whether we shoot photons or molecules, the message remains clear: the quantum world defies classical expectation and continues to challenge our deepest intuitions about nature.

---

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Historical Background
3. What Is Compton Scattering?
4. Classical Wave Prediction
5. Compton’s Experiment
6. Derivation of the Compton Shift
7. Key Equations and Interpretation
8. Conservation of Energy and Momentum
9. The Compton Wavelength
10. Experimental Validation
11. Implications for Photon Momentum
12. Quantum vs Classical Comparison
13. Applications of Compton Scattering
14. Limitations and Further Developments
15. Conclusion

---

1. Introduction

Compton scattering provided direct evidence for the particle nature of light and played a pivotal role in the development of quantum mechanics. It demonstrated that photons — light quanta — carry momentum and can interact with matter as particles, not just waves.

---

2. Historical Background

In 1923, Arthur H. Compton conducted a groundbreaking experiment on X-ray scattering. He found that X-rays scattered by electrons had longer wavelengths than the incident rays, and the shift depended on the angle of scattering — a result unexplainable by classical physics.

---

3. What Is Compton Scattering?

Compton scattering is the inelastic scattering of a photon by a charged particle, typically an electron. The photon loses energy (and increases in wavelength), while the electron recoils, conserving total energy and momentum.

---

4. Classical Wave Prediction

Classical theory treated light as a wave and predicted that:

• Wavelength should not change after scattering
• Intensity might vary with angle, but not frequency

Experiments contradicted this, showing a clear shift in wavelength, confirming the particle picture.

---

5. Compton’s Experiment

Using a graphite target and X-rays, Compton measured:

• Scattered X-ray wavelength increased with angle
• A secondary peak at the same angle confirmed recoiling electrons
• The shift matched predictions based on particle collisions

---

6. Derivation of the Compton Shift

Let:

• \( \lambda \): initial wavelength of the photon
• \( \lambda’ \): wavelength after scattering
• \( \theta \): angle of photon deflection
• \( m_e \): electron rest mass
• \( h \): Planck’s constant
• \( c \): speed of light

The Compton wavelength shift is:

\[
\Delta \lambda = \lambda’ – \lambda = \frac{h}{m_e c} (1 – \cos \theta)
\]

---

7. Key Equations and Interpretation

• Photon energy: \( E = h\nu = \frac{hc}{\lambda} \)
• Photon momentum: \( p = \frac{h}{\lambda} \)
• Recoil of electron: energy and momentum transferred from photon
• Shift increases with angle, max at \( \theta = 180^\circ \)

---

8. Conservation of Energy and Momentum

Energy conservation:

\[
h\nu + m_e c^2 = h\nu’ + \gamma m_e c^2
\]

Momentum conservation:

In both \( x \) and \( y \) directions for photon and electron.

Results in the derivation of the Compton formula through relativistic kinematics.

---

9. The Compton Wavelength

The Compton wavelength of the electron is a fundamental constant:

\[
\lambda_C = \frac{h}{m_e c} \approx 2.43 \times 10^{-12} \ \text{m}
\]

Sets a quantum limit for measuring electron position — appears in quantum field theory and quantum gravity.

---

10. Experimental Validation

Compton’s results matched predictions of the shift for various angles. Subsequent experiments with gamma rays and higher-energy photons extended these results, confirming the theory’s robustness.

Compton received the Nobel Prize in Physics (1927) for this discovery.

---

11. Implications for Photon Momentum

The success of Compton scattering showed that:

• Photons carry momentum: \( p = \frac{h}{\lambda} \)
• Light can behave as particles in collisions
• Energy and momentum must be treated relativistically

This was a key step in legitimizing quantum electrodynamics (QED).

---

12. Quantum vs Classical Comparison

Aspect	Classical Theory	Quantum Theory (Compton)
Energy Transfer	Continuous wave	Discrete quanta (photons)
Wavelength Shift	None	Angle-dependent shift
Electron Recoil	No prediction	Accurate predictions
Photon Momentum	Ignored	Essential to calculations

---

13. Applications of Compton Scattering

• X-ray crystallography and material analysis
• Gamma-ray astronomy
• Radiation detectors
• Medical imaging (e.g., PET scans)
• Compton telescopes in astrophysics
• Electron rest mass determination

---

14. Limitations and Further Developments

• Assumes free, stationary electrons
• Quantum field theory refines the interaction with bound electrons
• Extensions include Klein–Nishina formula for cross-section
• Inelastic scattering with internal energy states leads to Raman scattering

---

15. Conclusion

Compton scattering was a milestone in demonstrating the quantum nature of light. It revealed that photons carry momentum and can collide with electrons like particles. This discovery deepened our understanding of wave–particle duality and helped establish quantum mechanics as the new framework for describing nature at the microscopic level.

---

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Historical Context
3. Light as a Wave
4. Light as a Particle
5. The Double-Slit Experiment
6. de Broglie’s Hypothesis
7. Matter Waves and Electron Diffraction
8. Wave-Particle Duality of Photons
9. Wave-Particle Duality of Electrons
10. Interference and Probabilistic Interpretation
11. Complementarity Principle
12. Experimental Confirmations
13. Delayed Choice and Quantum Eraser Experiments
14. Implications for Quantum Theory
15. Philosophical Interpretations
16. Conclusion

---

1. Introduction

Wave-particle duality is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that every quantum entity — including light and electrons — exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, depending on the experimental context. This duality lies at the heart of quantum physics, challenging classical intuitions.

---

2. Historical Context

• Newton (17th century): proposed corpuscular (particle) theory of light
• Huygens and later Young (19th century): showed light behaves as a wave
• Maxwell: unified electric and magnetic fields into electromagnetic waves
• Planck and Einstein (early 20th century): demonstrated particle aspects of light (photons)

This progression set the stage for the quantum revolution.

---

3. Light as a Wave

Classical physics described light as an electromagnetic wave:

• Exhibits interference, diffraction, and polarization
• Wavelength \( \lambda \) and frequency \( \nu \) related by \( c = \lambda \nu \)
• Verified by Young’s double-slit experiment

---

4. Light as a Particle

Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect revealed that light can act as particles:

\[
E = h\nu
\]

• Light quanta (photons) eject electrons from metal surfaces
• Energy depends on frequency, not intensity
• Introduced the concept of photons with both energy and momentum

---

5. The Double-Slit Experiment

When light or electrons are sent through two slits:

• Wave behavior: creates interference patterns on a screen
• Particle detection: individual impacts appear as discrete points

Remarkably, even single photons or electrons build up an interference pattern over time, suggesting wave-like behavior with probabilistic detection.

---

6. de Broglie’s Hypothesis

In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that particles, like electrons, also have wave properties:

\[
\lambda = \frac{h}{p}
\]

Where:

• \( \lambda \) is the de Broglie wavelength
• \( p \) is momentum
• \( h \) is Planck’s constant

This idea extended wave-particle duality to all matter.

---

7. Matter Waves and Electron Diffraction

Confirmed in Davisson–Germer experiment (1927):

• Electrons diffracted off a nickel crystal produced interference patterns
• Verified de Broglie’s prediction

Also confirmed with:

• Neutron and atom diffraction
• C60 buckyballs and large molecules showing interference

---

8. Wave-Particle Duality of Photons

• Interfere like waves
• Detected as particles
• Exhibit entanglement and nonlocal correlations
• Single-photon interference proves indivisibility and delocalization

---

9. Wave-Particle Duality of Electrons

• Electron microscope relies on wave-like resolution
• Stern–Gerlach experiment shows quantized spin states
• Free electrons form interference patterns in two-slit setups

Electrons are neither classical particles nor waves — they are quantum objects.

---

10. Interference and Probabilistic Interpretation

Wavefunctions \( \psi(x, t) \) describe probability amplitudes. The Born rule gives:

\[
P(x, t) = |\psi(x, t)|^2
\]

• Interference results from combining amplitudes
• Collapse of wavefunction occurs on measurement
• Probabilities replace deterministic paths

---

11. Complementarity Principle

Proposed by Niels Bohr:

• Particle and wave aspects are complementary, not contradictory
• No experiment can show both simultaneously
• Measurement context defines observed nature

This philosophical stance forms the backbone of the Copenhagen interpretation.

---

12. Experimental Confirmations

• Electron diffraction
• Neutron and atom interferometry
• Photon entanglement and interference
• Delayed-choice and quantum eraser experiments

All support the wave-particle duality and challenge classical intuition.

---

13. Delayed Choice and Quantum Eraser Experiments

These thought experiments and real experiments demonstrate:

• The observer’s choice can determine whether a photon behaved like a wave or particle after it has passed the slits
• Suggests information and measurement play fundamental roles in physical reality

---

14. Implications for Quantum Theory

Wave-particle duality reveals:

• Quantum systems are not reducible to classical analogs
• The act of measurement defines reality
• Probabilities are fundamental, not due to ignorance
• Matter and energy share deep unity at quantum scales

---

15. Philosophical Interpretations

• Copenhagen: wavefunction collapse, measurement defines state
• Many-worlds: all outcomes exist, no collapse
• Pilot-wave theory: deterministic hidden variables
• Relational: reality is relative to observer-system interactions

Wave-particle duality remains a key battleground for interpretations of quantum mechanics.

---

16. Conclusion

Wave-particle duality shattered the classical divide between matter and radiation. Light behaves as both wave and particle. So do electrons, atoms, and molecules. This duality, perplexing yet experimentally undeniable, continues to guide our understanding of quantum mechanics, measurement, and the nature of reality itself.

---