it is actually doesn't matter. The de Brogile wavelength can be excluded from consideration completely - imagine an electron as just a very small metal speck whose position function is wave-like quantized - you'd still get the same interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. [The position function is wave-like quantized because it is QM, and thus all the interactions of the particle with environment - ie. electron with the EM field sending it to the screen in this experiment - happens in "quanta"s. ]
Don't get me wrong - i'm not denying de Brogile, i'm just saying that wave-like nature of a particle isn't necessary (and thus isn't proven by ) the double-slit experiment.
The single-particle double-slits are never really "single" particle - they always show statistical aggregate of many single particles and thus they are explainable by positional quantization alone (of small specks as described above).
Comments
Do you have any more information or references about this, in particular your claim that there are two different wavelengths in play?
it is actually doesn't matter. The de Brogile wavelength can be excluded from consideration completely - imagine an electron as just a very small metal speck whose position function is wave-like quantized - you'd still get the same interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. [The position function is wave-like quantized because it is QM, and thus all the interactions of the particle with environment - ie. electron with the EM field sending it to the screen in this experiment - happens in "quanta"s. ]
Don't get me wrong - i'm not denying de Brogile, i'm just saying that wave-like nature of a particle isn't necessary (and thus isn't proven by ) the double-slit experiment. The single-particle double-slits are never really "single" particle - they always show statistical aggregate of many single particles and thus they are explainable by positional quantization alone (of small specks as described above).