Recent content by J O Linton

I completely accept that. Thanks.

But my point is that the maths is different. Several people have already pointed out that you cannot apply SWE to photons.

OK So if we technically have to use Diracs relativistic equation to predict the behaviour of single photons in a double slit experiment but we can use SWE to predict he behaviour of electrons in a similar situation it is surely not a coincidence that they predict essentially the same result. It...

One more thing, if photons do not have a position operator and if non-relativistic QT does not apply to photons, why is the SWE so successful in predicting the outcome of situations like the double slit experiment?

This makes a lot of sense. In the case of an electron the correct answer is therefore C. Thanks. I looked up the Mott problem. That answered some other questions too. Very interesting.

Golly! That is quite some cop-out! suppose the atom is surrounded by a spherical half-silvered mirror of radius half a light second. Surely the photon is now in a superposition of two states, one transmitted, one reflected so it must have a wave function. What is the probability distribution of...

A photon is emitted from an excited atom at the origin. I would like to know what is the shape of the wave function or rather the probability distribution after 1 second. Is it A: a point 1 light second from the origin B: a spherical shell of radius 1 light second C: a spherical packet of waves...

Thank you for your response. I now realise that classical wave theory and QM must give the same answers as to the frequency of detection. It was stupid of me to suggest that D1 could ever fire 50% of the time! The quantum weirdness only becomes apparent when you try to explain why you get the...

The diagram above shows an ideal perfectly collimated equal arm M-Z interferometer. Photons enter the apparatus at the bottom left at a rate of 100 vertically polarised photons every second. Ideal polarisers are placed in the arms A and B at 45 degrees left and right. A third polariser is placed...

I think this post best answers my question. Thank you.

Would it, therefore, be fair to say that, on an interpretation which allows objective reduction (or collapse) of the wave function, precise knowledge of both x and p is only possible after the collapse, not before?

I am assuming that the transverse momentum is equal to ##p sin \theta## where ##p = h/ \lambda##

Both the articles I quoted imply that the HUP applies to individual particles. Both Einstein and Bohr in their famous debates in the 1920's assumed that this was the case. Were they both wrong?

In their articles on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Wikipedia says "there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less...

I came across the idea a long time ago but a recent post is https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-uncertainty-principle-applicable-to-single-slit-diffraction.1060441/unread In reply to phinds I do not wish to get into an argument over the meaning of the word random - but I hope we can...