![]() ![]() To be more precise when ever one observe the electron it is a particle with some uncertainty in the electron's state (velocity, position, momentum. On the over side, the wave characteristic of the electron in the interaction with an edge (slit, double slit, diffraction foil) is an interpretation of some thing what is not observable. The uncertainty of each interaction (between the electron and the photon and between the resulting photon and the measurement instrument) is the reason for the impossibility to conclude about the position of the electron during the transition of an edge (or a slit or a double slit). Since one cannot synchronize the electron's state with the photon's state the interaction between them always has an uncertainty and the result gets blurry. The fringes on the observation screen will be destroyed. By doing this the electron get disturbed and changes his direction. Sending photons, the electron reflect (absorb and re-emit) photons which one can detect then. If one want to see an electron you have to illuminate it. ![]() I reccomend Feynman's lecture on the subject or the first chapter of Quantum Mechanics by Claude Cohen-Tannoudji.Ī free moving electron does not emit photons. This would mean a single photon is crossing both slits simoultaneously, which is definitely a wave property and not a particle one. The rest of the photons will cross the wall across the other slit, but they will not form the expected diffraction pattern.īut if we remove the photodetectors and send the photons trough the wall, even in tiny packets small enough to consider that we are sending them one by one, we get the diffraction pattern. ![]() This means that we are able to find where the photon was going to cross, but we didn't let it cross the wall at all. But what happens when you place the photodetectors is that these absorb the photons which hit them, not allowing them to cross the wall. So a way to find out what's happening is to place photodetectors in the slits. It makes no sense to think of the photons as "particles" anymore, since they would need to cross both slits simoultaneously in order to create the diffraction pattern. The proposed dictionary matching approach permits segmentation, anomaly detection, and indexing to be performed in a unified manner with the additional benefit of uncertainty quantification.ĮBSD Von Mises–Fisher mixture distribution dictionary matching dynamical electron scattering electron backscatter diffraction pattern maximum likelihood orientation estimates.When you send the photons through the double-slited wall, they form a diffraction pattern on the other side, which is a wave-like phenomenon. The mean orientation is estimated using a maximum likelihood approach that models the orientation distribution as a mixture of Von Mises-Fisher distributions over the quaternionic three sphere. Indexing is accomplished by computing the mean orientation of the closest matches to each pattern. It classifies a pixel as being near a grain boundary if the highly ranked patterns in the dictionary differ significantly over the pixel's neighborhood. The DT classifies a pattern as an anomaly if it has an abnormally low similarity to any pattern in the dictionary. The statistical distribution of these closest matches is used in an unsupervised binary decision tree (DT) classifier to identify grain boundaries and anomalous regions. For each measured pattern, we identify the most similar patterns in the dictionary, and identify boundaries, detect anomalies, and index crystal orientations. We discretize the domain of a dynamical forward model onto a dense grid of orientations, producing a dictionary of patterns. We propose a framework for indexing of grain and subgrain structures in electron backscatter diffraction patterns of polycrystalline materials. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |