Wave–particle duality theory question

  • Thread starter Thread starter tiredryan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Duality Theory
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on wave-particle duality, specifically regarding the behavior of electrons and photons. It highlights the relationship between the amplitude of matter waves and the probability of locating an electron, indicating that this probability varies sinusoidally along its trajectory. The conversation also contrasts the applicability of Schrödinger's equation to electrons versus photons, with a focus on the limitations of defining a photon wave function. Participants clarify that while Schrödinger's equation can be used for electrons, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to both photons and electrons. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexities and nuances of quantum mechanics in understanding particle behavior.
tiredryan
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Note this is more of a coursework understanding question rather than a specific homework question.

Homework Statement



I have been reading about matter waves and de Broglie relations which suggest that electrons can act as waves. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave) it suggests that the following is true.
\lambda = \frac{h}{p} and f = \frac{E}{h}
In that article it does not suggest the significance of the amplitude in the matter wave. From the wave–particle duality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality) it suggests that "upon measuring the location of the particle, the wave-function will randomly "collapse" to a sharply peaked function at some location, with the likelihood of any particular location equal to the squared amplitude of the wave-function there."

The Attempt at a Solution


If I understand this correctly, the probability of finding an ejected electron along a linear trajectory is not equal along its path, but rather the probability is sinusoidal. At one part of the trajectory, I might have a 100% chance of finding an electron when the amplitude is max and \lambda/4 away there is a 0% chance of finding an electron when the amplitude is zero. This is counterintuitive so I want to check if my reasoning is correct.

Thanks in advance.

PS: For a numerical example, solving the equations for an electron in a 10 kV scanning electron microscope yields a wavelength of 12.3 x 10^-12 m (12.3 pm) as from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction. If I understand this correctly, as an electron travels in this setup, the probability of finding the electron varies from 0% to 100% sinusoidally with a wavelength of 12.3 x 10^-12 m (12.3 pm).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
So I came across another post in which it describes the photon wave function.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8698

In that post, arcnets, stated that "I mean it in the following sense: "It's not possible to define any photon wavefunction from which a probability amplitude for spatial localization can be calculated". (Landau-Lifschitz IV, chapter 1, §4.)"

If I understand this correctly, the probability of a photon at any position cannot be determined. However, the probability of an electron at a position can be determined by Schrodinger's equation. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance.
 
So on a related note I have delved deeper into Schrodinger's equations and came across Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It seems that Schrodinger's equation applys only to electrons and not photons whereas Heisenberg's uncertainty principle apply to photons and electrons. Are these correct limitations to these theories?

Thanks in advance.


tiredryan said:
So I came across another post in which it describes the photon wave function.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8698

In that post, arcnets, stated that "I mean it in the following sense: "It's not possible to define any photon wavefunction from which a probability amplitude for spatial localization can be calculated". (Landau-Lifschitz IV, chapter 1, §4.)"

If I understand this correctly, the probability of a photon at any position cannot be determined. However, the probability of an electron at a position can be determined by Schrodinger's equation. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance.
 
tiredryan said:
So on a related note I have delved deeper into Schrodinger's equations and came across Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It seems that Schrodinger's equation applys only to electrons and not photons whereas Heisenberg's uncertainty principle apply to photons and electrons. Are these correct limitations to these theories?

Thanks in advance.

This is totally false. Read the Marcella paper (i.e. don't just read Wikipedia)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703126.pdf

Zz.
 
Thanks for your quick response. I am a new student to physics, and I am still in my introductory physics class. I am trying to understand the paper and your statement, "this is totally false."

From the paper's statement, "because position and momentum are non-commuting observables, a particle passing through slits always has an uncertainty in its y-component of momentum," I am guessing that my statement, "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to photons and electrons," is correct. Or is it false?

I am guessing that the "totally false" statement has to deal with my other statement on Schrodinger's equation. If I understand the paper correctly, then Marcella was able to determine the "calculation for the probability amplitude and its corresponding probability function" using Schrodinger's equations. I am guessing this would mean that Schrodinger's equations applies to both photons and electrons. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Also is this quote by Arcnet citing Landau-Lifschitz posted earlier false? Arcnets, stated that "I mean it in the following sense: "It's not possible to define any photon wavefunction from which a probability amplitude for spatial localization can be calculated". (Landau-Lifschitz IV, chapter 1, §4.)"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8698

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for my confusion.

ZapperZ said:
This is totally false. Read the Marcella paper (i.e. don't just read Wikipedia)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703126.pdf

Zz.
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Replies
36
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
957
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Back
Top