@Rahimabadi I consider the problem of self interference of particles to be merely interpretational.I subscribe to the Bohmian view in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave ) .However, caution is needed not  to confuse the pilot wave with aether as the aether was thought to be in absolute rest.The pilot wave of Bohm et. al. is a dynamical wave.

As for your question ("why, even when ..."), that is because no matter how infrequently particles are released, this aspect does not alter the fact that these particles are described by wavefunctions. It is important to realise that theoretically (at least in textbooks treatments) one neglects particle-particle interaction, so that from the theoretical perspective it is irrelevant how many particles one has at a given time in the experimental chamber (the interference pattern is not brought about by particle-particle interaction, but by the association of each particle with a wavefunction). What is relevant from the practical perspective, is whether one has collected enough readings in order to construct a pattern in which fringes can be discernible. In fact, theoretically, if one assumes that nothing changes in the experimental set up and conditions, the interval between the release of particles can be arbitrarily long, without any change in the final experimental interference pattern. In practice however, changes in the experimental set up and conditions lead to the blurring of the interference pattern.

Dear Massih Sedigh-Rahimabadi,

when the source emits a single particle described by a more or less spherical wave in QM, the wave propagates to the slits where the two slits act as two sources. There are so many experiments of self-interference of a particle with itself that you can not discuss it away. Even experiments where one part of the one-particle wave has been rotated in oder to show that a fermion wave functions changes sign after a rotation by 2 pi have been performed already in 1975 (see e.g. the experiment with neutrons by Werner et al.,

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1053 ).

Sincerely,

Andreas Aste

Thank you all, but by this question I meant that if we consider the matter as wave (when the 2 slits are open) or even we consider it as a particle which interference whit itself, for the first part; a single wave from each slit never produces the interference patter but a single track just in the middle of two slits. And for the second part; the wave speed of a particle must moves faster than that particle in order to be able to interferes with itself (in this case, the speed of waves of a photon must be faster than the speed of the light!). On the other hand, if we accept that the wave characteristics of a matter or the self-interference of a matter produces the interference pattern on the screen while the 2 slits are open, then we must count more particles on the screen not the same as the particles which sparkled toward the screen. So, why we do not explain the experiment like this; there is a particle which moves through a special ether (an unstable dynamic ether) and produces some sort of waves in that ether. Therefore when there is a slit opened we detect one particle hitting the screen (just opposite the slit), and when the 2 slits are opened our particle goes through the tracks which its waves interferences produce after the slits. So, ofcourse there is a particle and wave characteristics, but the wave related to the ether not the matter.

Best regards.

Dear Aleksei,

By any consideration of matter as a wave, when there are 2 slits opened, the interferences of the waves should produce more particles. I mean, if for example we consider an electron as a wave, when 2 slits are opened, this wave passes through both slits and the 2 waves which emit from these 2 slits interfere each other and produce an electron on the screen. But in this case there could be jest 2 waves interference pattern which means just a single middle track. And if we consider our single electron as some multiple waves then; the interferences of these wave emitting from 2 slits must produce more electrons on the screen!

Thanks.

dear Massih, in response to your recent question " why we do not explain the experiment like this; there is a particle which moves through a special ether?" the answer will be actually " NO" , because the concept of ether in any form has been ruled out by especial relativity, So it can not be applied in any physical situation.

Dear Manouchehr,

Einstein himself did not ruled out the ether (Einstein, Albert:"Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity" (1918). Einstein, Albert: "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" (1920), republished in Sidelights on Relativity (Methuen, London, 1922)). But you are right the ether whit the characteristics that introduced by our ancestors has been some how ruled out.

Dear Aleksei,

You are right; my concept of wave and matter needs a complete change in order to accurately understand QM. But it is a big question for me that when there is nothing in the vacuum except some math. formulae, how we can observe wave, matter, curvature and etc.

I know that QM very precisely explains the atomic physical world, but why we do not need to join it to the gravity and come to a unified theory of everything.   

Best regards.

Dear Massih,

it is a bit terrible for a physicist to follow the discussion above. Let me tell you the following: The problem is that you still think in classical terms and in terms usually found in the popular literature. In QM, the state of a physical system (like a particle, in a very simple case) is described by an equivalence class of vectors (a ray) in an abstract, infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, and if you want to extract some specific information about the system, you have to act with an operator on the corresponding ray in a certain way. There are operators for momentum, position, energy etc. etc. which will give you some answers about the state. That is to say, what you see depends on how you look at the system. Take a cylinder with a vertical symmetry axis right in front of you: If you look from above, you see a circle, if you look directly at the object, you see a rectangle. But the cylinder is neither a circle, nor a rectangle. The same way you will see a particle or a wave in the case of a particle, depending on the way you interact with it, but the true physical entity is encoded in the Hilbert space structure and the algebra of observables acting on it, but this is a serious mathematical story which can only be learnt from technical papers and going the hard way.

Andreas

Dear Massih, you can justify for example one of your historical references  (1920) from this link and related up to date references :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories , and find out that the ether concept  as a carrier for photons, particles etc ,at the time being ,has a historical significance, Moreover the absence of a preferred reference frame (one of especial relativity laws ) evidently is in contrast with "ether" assumption. I refer you to any reliable texts in the context of SR and GR: Wolfgang Rindler; "Relativity,Special, General, And Cosmological "; pp12 , you may also recall that in contemporary physics ( QED,QFT, SUSY, etc) there is no place for a carrier for particles, However , for a philosophical or historical view and enthusiasm, i agree that the ether may be substituted by general accepted concept i.e. fields. 

@ Massih, please read carefully at least one of the "TEXTS" related to the subject, to be introduced with especial relativity, quantum mechanics and the "exact" concepts of ether (not ancestral) , wave-particle, and double slit.

Regards

Dear scientists,

I know that it is very difficult to explain some special and complicated contexts of QM to a medical doctor specially a moron like me. It is obvious that QM, with all its complex formula and strange modalities, has answered nearly almost all the questions of microscopic world and succeeded to formulate the way we observe nuclear experiments.   

But my main question is; do we really live in a world of just some pure and absolute mathematical formulas and equations? And if this is so, why these formulas have to do almost nothing in our real everyday life?

I think that our very valuable and appreciated mathematical equations are somehow the answer of our questions about the way we can calculate or predict the phenomena which we have faced till now not the mechanism of these experiments. For example, QM with so much precise probability can tell us how we can formulate the DSE or with which formula we can calculate the position of orbitals or etc. but it never tells us why our macroscopic and even microscopic world act like the way we observe and experience them. Upon QM; a photon in Young's experiment is somehow a condensed wave (it is better to say; it is a "wave formula") which spread in the space and by putting one or two slits in front of it we decide to reveal different probabilities which this specific "wave formula" can show itself against our detector on the screen. But, it almost says nothing about the nature of this wave and alsowhy this "wave formula" sometimes suddenly decides to act like a particle not a wave! On the other hand, in QM we face something like complex numbers, anti-matter, spins less than 1, but do we have these bizarre things in the real world or they are obligatory derivations of our correct formulas to show the way, our real world actions show themselves.     

To sum up; by my first question "Double Slit Experiment (DSE) a fundamental proof for Quantum Mechanics (QM) or …", that you dear scientist tried to help me to come to a solution, I wanted to say is it too explicable to say that for example; a photon is a hollow octahedron (which every sides of it is a wavy filament which spin round itself) that moves through a media with some special characteristics?!  

Best regards,