What's the Force Acting on an Isolated Electron at (0,0,0)?

[peeyush_ali]

consider an isolated electron present at (0,0,0). therefore it is smeared in the vicinity of the point(0,0,0). now its momentum and position changes every instant of time. But force is responsible for the change in momentum.what is the force acting ?

------
the probability of this content to contain irony is closer to one.

 

[Bob S]

The uncertainty principle:
Δp Δt ≥ h-bar/2.
F = dp/dt.
The force is on average zero, but indeterminate for times less than Δt.
Bob S

 

[peeyush_ali]

what is agent which causes this force?

 

[peeyush_ali]

or to which part of the universe will receive the impact in response to which the momentum changes?

 

[jtbell]

consider an isolated electron present at (0,0,0). therefore it is smeared in the vicinity of the point(0,0,0). now its momentum and position changes every instant of time.

We don't know that. We don't know what the electron is "really doing" before we measure its position or momentum. The mathematics of QM simply does not address this question. This is the subject of various interpretations of QM which give different answers.

 

[Matterwave]

There is no such smeared electrons in nature. Electrons are point particles, they are not smeared. What is smeared is the probability wave function.

Momentum doesn't "change" from time to time. The momentum is a well defined number once we measure it. Before we measure it, there is uncertainty as to the momentum (of course, measuring it won't yield ONE single number, but a range of values depending on the measurement errors). The Heisenberg uncertainty principle never says that momentum of particles change for no reason.

There is a difference between change and uncertainty.

 

[ytuab]

consider an isolated electron present at (0,0,0). therefore it is smeared in the vicinity of the point(0,0,0). now its momentum and position changes every instant of time. But force is responsible for the change in momentum.what is the force acting ?

For example, see the Shroedinger equation (of the constant energy (E)).

\frac{P^2}{2m}\psi -\frac{ke^2}{r} \psi = E \psi

So, the change of each value is,

\Delta(\frac{P^2}{2m}) - \Delta(\frac{ke^2}{r})=\Delta(\frac{P^2}{2m}) + \frac{ke^2}{r^2}\Delta(r) = \Delta(E) = 0

We arrive at the following relation,

\Delta(\frac{P^2}{2m}) = - \frac{ke^2}{r^2} \Delta(r)

This means that the energy of the motion is influenced by the Coulomb force (X the moving distance).
Actually if we use the reduced mass of the electron considering the motion around the center of mass, the better results is obtained.

 

[Matterwave]

Of course, ytuab is talking about a particle in a potential. In QM we deal with potentials and not forces. On the QM scale, all forces are conservative, so we can do this (Since F=-del U for conservative forces). So, in those cases, the potential provides the "force". We just decided not to talk about forces, and just talk about potentials.

I believe Peeyush's question involved a free particle. In that situation, there is no force or potential. What dictates the motion of the particle is the initial conditions. The average (expected) momentum does not change in such a situation. The fluctuations around this average value is uncertainty and not changes.

It may interest Peeyush to know Ehrenfest's theorem. Which is that the expectation values of observables follow traditional classical mechanics. Which means d<p>/dt = -del U (which is F). Since -del U is 0 in terms of a free particle, d<p>/dt=0 for a free particle. The expectation value of momentum does not change, just as in classical mechanics.

 

[Dale]

consider an isolated electron present at (0,0,0). therefore it is smeared in the vicinity of the point(0,0,0). now its momentum and position changes every instant of time. But force is responsible for the change in momentum.what is the force acting ?

I think the part in bold is mistaken. If you have no force acting on the electron (isolated) then the potential is not a function of space and so the Lagrangian is symmetric under spatial shifts. Therefore, per Noether's theorem momentum is conserved, so it doesn't just randomly vary. It is true that you cannot measure both the position and the momentum to infinite precision, but that is not the same as the momentum not being conserved.

 

[eaglelake]

consider an isolated electron present at (0,0,0). therefore it is smeared in the vicinity of the point(0,0,0). now its momentum and position changes every instant of time. But force is responsible for the change in momentum.what is the force acting ?

------
the probability of this content to contain irony is closer to one.

There is no force acting. Force is a classical concept. If the electron has a known position (0,0,0) then it has an infinite uncertainty in its momentum. When there is an uncertainty in momentum, the probability of the electron being deflected (without any classical forces acting on it) is non-zero.

It is all explained in arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0703126.

 

[ytuab]

But actually, in QM we use the classical concept force such as the Coulomb force(f).
See the reduced mass.

When in the two-body system, there is a force(f) between the two particles(for example nucleus(1) and the electron(2)),

m_{1}\frac{d^2r_{1}}{dt^{2}} = -f, \quad m_{2}\frac{d^2r_{2}}{dt^{2}} = f

Here we define r as r = r_{2}-r_{1}. we arrive at the following relation.

\mu = \frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}, \quad \mu\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=f

If we use this \mu instead of the electron mass(m_{2}), the energy levels of the Schroedinger equation becomes more correct.

And the virial theorem is valid also in the quantum mechanics. (Wiki)
In the virial theorem, using <T> (the average kinetic energy) of a stable system and the force(F),

2&lt;T&gt; = - \sum_{k=1}^{N} &lt;F_{k}\cdot r_{k}&gt;

When the force between the two particles of the system is the Coulomb force,

&lt;T&gt;=-\frac{1}{2}&lt;V&gt;

 

[LostConjugate]

There is no such smeared electrons in nature. Electrons are point particles, they are not smeared. What is smeared is the probability wave function.

What?

The electron is a group of waves otherwise known as a wave-particle. I thought we did away with thinking of electrons as point particles 100 years ago.

Sure when you collapse the wave function it is measured as a point particle, that doesn't mean its not a wave before we touch it.

If an electron was a point particle there would be angular momentum in the lowest energy state of a hydrogen atom.

 

[meopemuk]

Sure when you collapse the wave function it is measured as a point particle, that doesn't mean its not a wave before we touch it.

That's a very tricky question. How things are when they are not observed? Is there Moon when nobody is looking? Is there sound when a tree is falling and nobody's around to hear it?

Physics is a science about observable things. Every statement made by a physical theory should be (at least in principle) possible to confirm/reject by experiment. If a statement cannot be verified (because we are not allowed to look) then it doesn't belong to physics. It belongs to philosophy. The whole argument about waves and particles is of that philosophical kind.

Eugene.

 

[SpectraCat]

Actually, I was just reading a paper online (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4462521/Derivation-of-Schrodinger-Equation-and-Klein-Gordon-Equation-From-Lagrangian-Dynamics-and-Discreteness" ) that seems to address the OP's question. The author claims to derive the Schrodinger and Klein-Gordon equations from classical Lagrangians, assuming only quantization of energy and momentum, along with a background "zero-point field". The author argues that it is the action of instantaneous fluctuations of the background field that give rise to the uncertainty in position and momentum of a (free) particle.

 

[LostConjugate]

That's a very tricky question. How things are when they are not observed? Is there Moon when nobody is looking? Is there sound when a tree is falling and nobody's around to hear it?

Physics is a science about observable things. Every statement made by a physical theory should be (at least in principle) possible to confirm/reject by experiment. If a statement cannot be verified (because we are not allowed to look) then it doesn't belong to physics. It belongs to philosophy. The whole argument about waves and particles is of that philosophical kind.

Eugene.

And so I agree if it can't be measured it can't interact with anything and is not science.

However measurements have shown that before a particle is measured it could not possibly be a particle in the billiard ball sense and is in fact a collection of waves with different frequency.

 

[SpectraCat]

And so I agree if it can't be measured it can't interact with anything and is not science.

However measurements have shown that before a particle is measured it could not possibly be a particle in the billiard ball sense and is in fact a collection of waves with different frequency.

Hmmm ... I am not aware of any experiments that support your statement as phrased. Experiments on the quantum mechanical properties of a system by their very nature cannot address the characteristics of said system previous to the measurement taking place.

Perhaps what you mean is something closer to, "An experiment designed to measure the particle properties of an electron will observe it as a particle, and an experiment designed to measure the wave properties of an electron observes it as a wave. A mathematical model that is consistent with both these experimental observations is a quantum wave-packet, where the electron is represented as a superposition of quantum states with different momenta."?

 

[eaglelake]

But actually, in QM we use the classical concept force such as the Coulomb force(f).
See the reduced mass.

When in the two-body system, there is a force(f) between the two particles(for example nucleus(1) and the electron(2)),

m_{1}\frac{d^2r_{1}}{dt^{2}} = -f, \quad m_{2}\frac{d^2r_{2}}{dt^{2}} = f

Here we define r as r = r_{2}-r_{1}. we arrive at the following relation.

\mu = \frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}, \quad \mu\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=f

If we use this \mu instead of the electron mass(m_{2}), the energy levels of the Schroedinger equation becomes more correct.

And the virial theorem is valid also in the quantum mechanics. (Wiki)
In the virial theorem, using <T> (the average kinetic energy) of a stable system and the force(F),

2&lt;T&gt; = - \sum_{k=1}^{N} &lt;F_{k}\cdot r_{k}&gt;

When the force between the two particles of the system is the Coulomb force,

&lt;T&gt;=-\frac{1}{2}&lt;V&gt;

We do not use the classical equations you have written in quantum mechanics (QM) and I know of no way to obtain the stationary states of Hydrogen, for example, from them alone. We must remember that observables in QM are operators and the mathematical formalism is radically different from the way we do classical mechanics.

You may be thinking of the Bohr Hydrogen atom (1913) where Bohr used classical equations, plus quantization of angular momentum, to obtain the correct energy levels. But this ad hoc approach fails elsewhere in spite of massive efforts to save it before the invention of quantum mechanics (1927).

However, Erhenfest’s theorem is often used to demonstrate a classical limit of the quantum approach. It tells us how to obtain classical-like equations in terms of expectation values. For example, classically Newton’s second law can be written as dp/dt =-dV/dx. In QM, p and V are operators. But, for any quantum state, we can calculate the average values <p> and <V> (called expectation values, as you may know), which obey the equation d<p>/dt=-d<V>/dx that does looks like its classical counterpart. Maybe you were thinking of this?
Best wishes.

 

[eaglelake]

My apologies to matterwave. I had not read his response and mention of Ehrenfest's theorem
before posting my reply to ytuab.

 

[ytuab]

We do not use the classical equations you have written in quantum mechanics (QM) and I know of no way to obtain the stationary states of Hydrogen, for example, from them alone. We must remember that observables in QM are operators and the mathematical formalism is radically different from the way we do classical mechanics.

You may be thinking of the Bohr Hydrogen atom (1913) where Bohr used classical equations, plus quantization of angular momentum, to obtain the correct energy levels. But this ad hoc approach fails elsewhere in spite of massive efforts to save it before the invention of quantum mechanics (1927).

I see what you mean, eaglelake.
But I'm sorry to say you probably misunderstand what I said in #11.
Because the reduced mass in #11 is used also in the hydrogen solution of the Schroedinger equation (this is the same as the Bohr model.)

See this site. Of course this site is about the Shroedinger equation of the hydrogen atom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, \mu=m_{e}m_{p}/(m_{e}+m_{p}) is the reduced mass, which takes into account the fact that the electron and the proton both rotate about a common centre, which is equivalent to a particle of mass \mu rotating about a fixed point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you know, if you don't use this form of the reduced mass, the correct energy levels of the Schroedinger equation would not be obtained. This is a well-known fact. But if you want to arrive at this equation of the reduced mass, you have to think about the classical rotaion of the electron. Do you know some other ways of getting this \mu=m_{e}m_{p}/(m_{e}+m_{p}) using only quantum mechanics?

If you know more about the Bohr model, see this thread.
I think the historical parts (in 1920's) are not explained in detail in the ordinary QM textbooks.

For example, the solution of Bohr-Sommerfeld model completely coincides with that of the Dirac equation. (See this Wiki.)
Why does the Bohr-Sommerfeld model which has no electron spin coincide with the Dirac equation which includes the spin-orbital interaction?
Because the Dirac hydorogen model includes "many accidental coincidences" as follows (See my post #20 in the Bohr thread as I said above.)

In page 167 Atomic physics by Max Born
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case of hydrogen is peculiar in one respect. Experiment gives distinctly fewer terms than are specified in the term scheme of fig 9; for n=2 only two terms are found, for n=3 only three, and so on.
The theoretical calculation shows that here (by a mathematical coincidense, so to speak) two terms sometimes coincide, the reason beeing that the relativity and spin corrections partly compensate each other. It is found that terms with the same inner quantum number j but different azimuthal quantum numbers l always strictly coincide.
----------------------------------------------------------

Of cource, the Bohr-Sommerfeld model doesn't have the electron spin, so it doesn't contain these accidental coincidences.
Generally speaking, the probability that many coincidences occur is very small.

 

[LostConjugate]

Hmmm ... I am not aware of any experiments that support your statement as phrased. Experiments on the quantum mechanical properties of a system by their very nature cannot address the characteristics of said system previous to the measurement taking place.

Perhaps what you mean is something closer to, "An experiment designed to measure the particle properties of an electron will observe it as a particle, and an experiment designed to measure the wave properties of an electron observes it as a wave. A mathematical model that is consistent with both these experimental observations is a quantum wave-packet, where the electron is represented as a superposition of quantum states with different momenta."?

An example would be quantum tunneling. In order for an entire particle to tunnel it must be made up of waves.

 

[SpectraCat]

As you know, if you don't use this form of the reduced mass, the correct energy levels of the Schroedinger equation would not be obtained. This is a well-known fact. But if you want to arrive at this equation of the reduced mass, you have to think about the classical rotaion of the electron. Do you know some other ways of getting this \mu=m_{e}m_{p}/(m_{e}+m_{p}) using only quantum mechanics?

Reduced mass has nothing to do with rotation per se ... the same formula is used for the reduced mass of a harmonic oscillator, or any other case where two particles are bound in a potential. I understood it was the interaction of the electron in proton in the Coulomb potential that provided the basis for the reduced mass. As far as I am aware, there is nothing about the reduced mass formula that is any less valid for Q.M. than for C.M.

 

[SpectraCat]

An example would be quantum tunneling. In order for an entire particle to tunnel it must be made up of waves.

Still, you are making an arbitrary choice of which manifestation to emphasize in your argument. I could equivalently argue that in order for an entity to be detected in a confined region of space, it must have particle character.

Furthermore, you are choosing to make your argument in the spatial representation, where the particle is represented as a superposition of free-particle momentum eigenstates (i.e. infinitely delocalized waves) in the spatial representation. Of course since position and momentum are conjugate variables, it is equally valid to make the argument in the momentum representation, in which case the particle is represented as a superposition of discrete particles at precise positions with infinite uncertainties in their momenta. So from that point of view you can rationalize that the wave nature of the particle (i.e. its delocalization) arises from it being in a superposition of localized particle states.

 

[LostConjugate]

Still, you are making an arbitrary choice of which manifestation to emphasize in your argument. I could equivalently argue that in order for an entity to be detected in a confined region of space, it must have particle character.

Furthermore, you are choosing to make your argument in the spatial representation, where the particle is represented as a superposition of free-particle momentum eigenstates (i.e. infinitely delocalized waves) in the spatial representation. Of course since position and momentum are conjugate variables, it is equally valid to make the argument in the momentum representation, in which case the particle is represented as a superposition of discrete particles at precise positions with infinite uncertainties in their momenta. So from that point of view you can rationalize that the wave nature of the particle (i.e. its delocalization) arises from it being in a superposition of localized particle states.

But then the particle states of which the waves are a superposition would need to be described in the position basis and once again would become a particle of waves. So the particle is a particle of waves of particles of waves of particles of waves...

Is it the chicken or the egg?

 

[SpectraCat]

But then the particle states of which the waves are a superposition would need to be described in the position basis and once again would become a particle of waves. So the particle is a particle of waves of particles of waves of particles of waves...

Is it the chicken or the egg?

Which was exactly my point a few posts back. According to my understanding of Q.M., a quantum state is some abstract entity for which we can only measure various properties, and the very nature of the measurements perturbs the quantum system so that only certain properties can be measured simultaneously. Thus, a measurement of particle properties might force collapse of the wavefunction to a confined region of space, where a measurement of wave properties might measure diffraction from a system of slits.

So an electron is neither a particle nor a wave, and it is both. ;)

 

[LostConjugate]

Which was exactly my point a few posts back. According to my understanding of Q.M., a quantum state is some abstract entity for which we can only measure various properties, and the very nature of the measurements perturbs the quantum system so that only certain properties can be measured simultaneously. Thus, a measurement of particle properties might force collapse of the wavefunction to a confined region of space, where a measurement of wave properties might measure diffraction from a system of slits.

So an electron is neither a particle nor a wave, and it is both. ;)

I wish I knew enough to continue this argument, but I thought this was the original argument of QM in the 1920's or so and now there is solid proof that all matter is only oscillating energy.

I can't recall exactly when I came to this understanding but it was somewhere in the woodwork of mathematical and physics courses over the years.

I think what threw me off so much was when it was stated that the electron is a point particle and that the probability wave is smeared.

For one thing the probability wave is not a wave of probabilities it is a wave with a probability consequence as all wave mechanics have always been since before QM.

So its just a wave, well a collection of waves, and it describes the electron in a way which meets our experimental results. There is no billiard ball description that meets all current experimental results.

 

[SpectraCat]

I wish I knew enough to continue this argument, but I thought this was the original argument of QM in the 1920's or so and now there is solid proof that all matter is only oscillating energy.

I can't recall exactly when I came to this understanding but it was somewhere in the woodwork of mathematical and physics courses over the years.

I think what threw me off so much was when it was stated that the electron is a point particle and that the probability wave is smeared.

For one thing the probability wave is not a wave of probabilities it is a wave with a probability consequence as all wave mechanics have always been since before QM.

So its just a wave, well a collection of waves, and it describes the electron in a way which meets our experimental results. There is no billiard ball description that meets all current experimental results.

Actually, depending on what you mean by "billiard ball", I don't think that last statement is correct. The "pilot wave" formalism of de Broglie, and its subsequent development by Bohm and Bell, maintains that particles have well-defined positions and momenta at all times, but these are "hidden variables". To my knowledge, this theory is consistent with all experimental measurements, and has never been debunked. However, there are discussions involving this going on in other current threads involving posters far better versed in this than I.

Personally, I prefer the quantum wavepacket description, because I am used to it, and I understand how to apply it to explain experimental results, at least within the narrow realm of physics where I prowl.

 

[Matterwave]

Even if we try to detect wave properties, such as with diffraction, we still always detect one electron at a time.

We never detect a smeared out electron. As such, an electron is observationally proven to be not smeared out.

 

[SpectraCat]

Even if we try to detect wave properties, such as with diffraction, we still always detect one electron at a time.

We never detect a smeared out electron. As such, an electron is observationally proven to be not smeared out.

What do you mean by, "never detect a smeared out electron"? That does not seem to be precisely phrased. What kind of measurement are you talking about? How do you know it is not smeared out? According to the HUP, any measurement on an electron will measure a quantum state that has a finite uncertainties in both position and momentum. One could certainly argue in colloquial language that such an electron is "smeared out" in either representation.

Furthermore, you state rather cavalierly that "we always detect one electron at a time". Really? How do you know? Isn't there a finite probability that what is detected as an electron in your putative experiment really arises from two electrons, or none?

"Detecting an electron" experimentally is *not* a clean, discrete event. It usually involves an *observer decision* about a measured event, for example, a detector voltage rising above a pre-determined threshold within a specified time interval. There is certainly no guarantee that anyone such event was really caused by an actual electron. One can only specify the probability that the event was caused by an electron.

The point of all this is that what is typically measured experimentally is *a lot* of electrons, representing the probability distribution of possible events. Measuring single events is actually quite technically challenging, and the results of such measurements need to be interpreted quite carefully, such as with the Bell's Inequality tests. I can't claim a comprehensive knowledge of that literature, but to my knowledge, even those experiments never claim to have measured single electrons (or any other particles) with any degree of certainty.

 

[Matterwave]

Perhaps the only way I can state what I mean clearly is to say that we never detect a fraction of an electron.

We never see 1/4 of an electron over here on this side of the barrier, and 3/4 over there on the other side of the barrier.

Smeared is indeed a bad word to use. But that's the word the OP used, so I didn't feel like saying anything more.

 

[LostConjugate]

Even if we try to detect wave properties, such as with diffraction, we still always detect one electron at a time.

We never detect a smeared out electron. As such, an electron is observationally proven to be not smeared out.

If you have a string bound at both sides oscillating as a standing wave and you put your hand somewhere on it and hold until the energy from the wave is absorbed into your hand you could say

"I found the energy right here where I placed my hand and now if I place my hand anywhere else on the string I do not find any energy"

 

[SpectraCat]

If you have a string bound at both sides oscillating as a standing wave and you put your hand somewhere on it and hold until the energy from the wave is absorbed into your hand you could say

"I found the energy right here where I placed my hand and now if I place my hand anywhere else on the string I do not find any energy"

Ok, that seems grossly oversimplified, but let's run with it ... you could also do another experiment where you made two separate measurements at two points in space x and x', where 1/4 of the energy was measured at point x and 3/4 was measured at x'. This is of course possible because the energy of the string is a continuous variable.

The point Matterwave and I have been trying to drive home is that you cannot do the analogous experiment for an electron. It is a discrete particle (as far as we know), and no experiment has succeeded in measuring a fraction of an electron.

Your points seem to reduce to "there is no explanation for quantum phenomena in the framework of classical physics", which of course we will all agree to. You have indicated a personal preference to emphasize the wave-nature of quantum systems as somehow being more significant than their particle nature. I have been trying to show that there is not a general consensus within the physics community that such emphasis is justified.

 

[LostConjugate]

Ok, that seems grossly oversimplified, but let's run with it ... you could also do another experiment where you made two separate measurements at two points in space x and x', where 1/4 of the energy was measured at point x and 3/4 was measured at x'. This is of course possible because the energy of the string is a continuous variable.

Ok let's say you did this experiment. You setup a measuring device at two different points on the string. Now each device must collapse this standing wave and absorb the energy in order to make a measurement but let's say with this string there is only enough total kinetic energy in the string to make a single recording.

This may be a very fragile system with huge limitations in the measuring devices but so is measuring an electron.

 

[SpectraCat]

Ok let's say you did this experiment. You setup a measuring device at two different points on the string. Now each device must collapse this standing wave and absorb the energy in order to make a measurement but let's say with this string there is only enough total kinetic energy in the string to make a single recording.

This may be a very fragile system with huge limitations in the measuring devices but so is measuring an electron.

This is a red herring AFAICS. Even if one allows perfect, noise free, ideal instrumentation with infinite sensitivity, there is no experiment one can propose, consistent with the laws of Q.M. as we understand them, which can measure a fraction of an electron. So the issue of measurement precision doesn't enter into it.

For your example of the energy of the string, in the ideal case you can just say, "improve the sensitivity of the experiment until you can measure the fractional energy in two places". Since you are assuming a purely classical system with a continuous energy variable, this will always work.

 

[LostConjugate]

This is a red herring AFAICS. Even if one allows perfect, noise free, ideal instrumentation with infinite sensitivity, there is no experiment one can propose, consistent with the laws of Q.M. as we understand them, which can measure a fraction of an electron. So the issue of measurement precision doesn't enter into it.

For your example of the energy of the string, in the ideal case you can just say, "improve the sensitivity of the experiment until you can measure the fractional energy in two places". Since you are assuming a purely classical system with a continuous energy variable, this will always work.

But for two measurements some time dt must be present between each measurement. I have never heard of the wave function taking time to collapse.

 

[eaglelake]

I see what you mean, eaglelake.
But I'm sorry to say you probably misunderstand what I said in #11.
Because the reduced mass in #11 is used also in the hydrogen solution of the Schroedinger equation (this is the same as the Bohr model.)

Bohr's 1913 calculations are erroneous in many ways, as you know. He did not use Schrodinger's equation. Bohr's 1913 solution is not the same as Schrodinger's equation, which does gives the correct solution for the the Hydrogen atom.

As you know, if you don't use this form of the reduced mass, the correct energy levels of the Schroedinger equation would not be obtained. This is a well-known fact. But if you want to arrive at this equation of the reduced mass, you have to think about the classical rotaion of the electron. Do you know some other ways of getting this \mu=m_{e}m_{p}/(m_{e}+m_{p}) using only quantum mechanics?

If you know more about the Bohr model, see this thread.
I think the historical parts (in 1920's) are not explained in detail in the ordinary QM textbooks.

You are correct: the reduced mass should be used. But, the significant thing here is that what we now call quantum mechanics uses Schrodinger's equation. The reduced mass, on the other hand, is not an essential concept in quantum mechanics. I am puzzled why you put so much emphasis on it.

The old quantum mechanics that existed prior to 1927 is now understood to be a mess that erroneously tried to modify classical mechanics to explain quantum events. Every new problem required ad hoc assumptions to make it work. We do ignore it today, because that is not how we do quantum mechanics. Today, when we say "quantum mechanics", it is understood to be 1927 and later.

 

[eaglelake]

But then the particle states of which the waves are a superposition would need to be described in the position basis and once again would become a particle of waves. So the particle is a particle of waves of particles of waves of particles of waves...

Is it the chicken or the egg?

This is a common misconception - that somehow the particle is a wave, or a superposition of waves, This is not true! The fallacy occurs when we confuse the particle, which is a part of the experiment, with the state function, which is a mathematical thing that we use to determine probabilities. The state function is a probability amplitude defined in a linear function space. The state function does not describe the behavior of the particle as it traverses through the experimental apparatus. Nor does the state function propagate in 3-space, as the particle does. Particles interact with particle detectors, state functions do not. No experiment has ever revealed a state function moving along with the particle.

The quantum mechanical explanation of tunneling is thus: If the momentum state is an eigenstate of momentum, i.e. we have prepared particles with a known momentum, then there is an infinite uncertainty in the particles position. That means we have no idea where the particle will be found when we make a position measurement. The experimental results verify this. Position measurements find some particles in front of the barrier, while other measurements find it behind the barrier, as if it had somehow penetrated (tunneled?) through the barrier. But such a view is a classical picture that has no connection with the results of this experiment. All we know is that, in the tunneling experiment, some particles are found beyond the barrier, and with the state function, we can predict the probability of this happening. Neither quantum theory nor the actual experiment gives a mechanism for such behavior. There is no answer to the question, "how did the particle get beyond the barrier"? Quantum mechanics doesn't tell us, and we know classical mechanics doesn't work.
Best wishes

 

[meopemuk]

All we know is that, in the tunneling experiment, some particles are found beyond the barrier, and with the state function, we can predict the probability of this happening. Neither quantum theory nor the actual experiment gives a mechanism for such behavior. There is no answer to the question, "how did the particle get beyond the barrier"? Quantum mechanics doesn't tell us, and we know classical mechanics doesn't work.
Best wishes

This is exactly right. QM is not designed to provide mechanistic explanations of "why" and "how" things happen. QM is only a mathematical formalism that allows us to predict results of measurements.

The endless debates about "interpretations" of quantum mechanics and "is electron a particle or a wave?" cannot be resolved by scientific means. These debates result from unrealistic expectations that physics must give us detailed mechanisms of everything happening in nature, including things that happen when no observations are made. One can invent dozens of such mechanisms, including such bizarre ideas that the whole world splits into infinite number of copies once an electron touches a measuring device. These ideas cannot be checked by experiments, so they do not belong to science.

Feynman was right that one should not ask too many questions about QM. "Shut up and calculate!"

Eugene.

 

[ytuab]

Bohr's 1913 calculations are erroneous in many ways, as you know. He did not use Schrodinger's equation. Bohr's 1913 solution is not the same as Schrodinger's equation, which does gives the correct solution for the the Hydrogen atom.

You are correct: the reduced mass should be used. But, the significant thing here is that what we now call quantum mechanics uses Schrodinger's equation. The reduced mass, on the other hand, is not an essential concept in quantum mechanics. I am puzzled why you put so much emphasis on it.

The old quantum mechanics that existed prior to 1927 is now understood to be a mess that erroneously tried to modify classical mechanics to explain quantum events. Every new problem required ad hoc assumptions to make it work. We do ignore it today, because that is not how we do quantum mechanics. Today, when we say "quantum mechanics", it is understood to be 1927 and later.

eaglelake, SpectraCat, thanks for your reply.

But I think this thread is about "whether the force is influencing the momentum or not in QM".
You said "There is no force acting. Force is a classical concept." in #10.
Of cource I see what you mean. But the reduced mass is an essential concept in QM.
If you don't use the nuclear movement, the energy error would be greater than the relativistic energy error.
If you think the reduced mass is not related to the nuclear movement(this is the same as the electron movement), the equation of the reduced mass as I said above would not be obtained. Here I mean the electron movement is the classical rotaion or the classical oscillation by the classical force.

If we do m_{p} \to \infty, the reduced mass \frac{m_{e}m_{p}}{m_{e}+m_{p}} \to m_{e}. this means the reduced mass is related to the nuclear (or electron) movement.
Using only the QM methods or only the Coulomb potential (not force) we can't ariive at this equation of the reduced mass.

 

[LostConjugate]

Whew... well at least I proved my point that its not for fact a particle. I see your point about how a wave function in an infinite LVS is not the same as waves in 3-space. Will keep it in mind.

 

[SpectraCat]

eaglelake, SpectraCat, thanks for your reply.

But I think this thread is about "whether the force is influencing the momentum or not in QM".
You said "There is no force acting. Force is a classical concept." in #10.
Of cource I see what you mean. But the reduced mass is an essential concept in QM.
If you don't use the nuclear movement, the energy error would be greater than the relativistic energy error.
If you think the reduced mass is not related to the nuclear movement(this is the same as the electron movement), the equation of the reduced mass as I said above would not be obtained. Here I mean the electron movement is the classical rotaion or the classical oscillation by the classical force.

If we do m_{p} \to \infty, the reduced mass \frac{m_{e}m_{p}}{m_{e}+m_{p}} \to m_{e}. this means the reduced mass is related to the nuclear (or electron) movement.
Using only the QM methods or only the Coulomb potential (not force) we can't ariive at this equation of the reduced mass.

Look, reduced mass has NOTHING to do with QM or CM per se ... it is not somehow essential, as you seem to be making out to be. Yes, the H-atom levels are wrong if you don't take the finite mass of the nucleus into account ... why should that be surprising?

Reduced mass is simply a transformation to an inertial frame of reference that is more computationally convenient. It is probably possible to work out all of these solutions in an inertial frame where the motion of each particle is considered independently, but AFAIK nobody bothers to do that because it is WAY harder, and would anyway be equivalent to the known solutions using reduced mass.

 

[SpectraCat]

Whew... well at least I proved my point that its not for fact a particle. I see your point about how a wave function in an infinite LVS is not the same as waves in 3-space. Will keep it in mind.

Who said it was just a particle? I never did ... I said that experiments designed to measure particle properties do exactly that, and likewise for experiments designed to measure wave properties.

Another poster said it was a particle *with an associated probability wave*, which is just a casual description of the deBroglie-Bohm picture of Q.M., which is also completely consistent with available experimental evidence.

Oh .. and I also said, "An electron is neither a particle nor a wave, and it is both." ... which is a phrasing I came up with and like a lot, but probably has already been said by someone before me.