One electron double slit experiment by Akira Tonomura
Why Physics Stack Exchange recommends it
Physics Stack Exchange answerers point people to it as a clear visual demonstration that individual electrons produce wave-like interference, which backs up explanations of the double-slit experiment and quantum probability.
Recommended by 2 people across 2 different months, 2016 to 2023.
What it is
A 69-second clip of the single-electron double-slit experiment by Akira Tonomura at Hitachi, showing electrons landing one at a time on a detector and gradually building up an interference pattern. It is a re-upload of footage originally hosted on Hitachi's site, which was later removed after Tonomura's death.
What people said
Recommends Raghu Parthasarathy · 2016-12 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Double slit detector”
There's an excellent video of double-slit interference for electrons here [this video] . Your statement "how they detect which slit the photon goes through without destroying the waves" doesn't make sense, though.
Recommends Dr S T Lakshmikumar · 2018-12 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “$E=mc^2$: Why does the speed of light constant affect the Energy or Mass of an object?”
I like the E =mc^2 part of the question because I asked this in my school and my teacher was extremely pleased with me. So I will now try to answer the question. Honestly though the double slit experiment has nothing to with it. Everyone should have a look at the single electron diffraction video. For example [this video] . And I mean EVERYONE. The electron has simply a probability for falling at any point on the screen. Initially there are a few random pounts but as the numbers increase the inteference becomes obvious. There is no doubt whatsoever. Why nature behaves in this absurd ( to human minds) way is simply unknown. But it does and like Feynman I am delighted with it. Now for the E=mc^2 is
Cites Liam Clink · 2020-01 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “De Broglie Principle”
At least as I understand it, de Broglie more or less had the idea, but as with many things in physics, it wasn't put on rigorous mathematical footing right away. What matters ultimately in science is what nature does, you can speculate all day until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day you have to check against nature. And wouldn't you know it, at about the same time an experiment was done to check whether de Broglie was right, not only that matter behaves as a wave, but also that his wavelength was right. [LINK] The experiment was essentially firing electrons with a specific momentum at a nickel target and measuring the interference pattern caused by scattering in the nickel.
Cites GiorgioP-DoomsdayClockIsAt-85 · 2023-03 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “The probability density function $|Ψ|²$”
Born formulated his statistical/probabilistic interpretation of QM for two main reasons. The first was the difficulty in maintaining de Broglie's point of view of wave-like particles. One of the observations made by Born in his very readable paper [LINK] , where he proposed the statistical/probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction, was that, for $N$ particles, they are waves in a $3N$ -dimensional configuration space, not in the actual $3$ -D space. The second was the analogy with statistical mechanics. Atomic-scale experiments and statistical mechanics share the problem of not knowing the starting configuration accurately. Then we can naturally introduce probabilities to cope with th