High School Can clocks explain the probability of finding a particle in motion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Derek M
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion Particle
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the concept of using "clocks" to represent the wave function of a particle in motion, as explained in "The Quantum Universe" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. The participant understands that clocks wound forward constructively indicate a high probability of finding a particle at a specific point, X. However, confusion arises regarding why these clocks only add constructively within a certain region left of X, suggesting a misunderstanding of how wave functions operate. The conversation touches on the difference between learning physics through popular science books versus textbooks, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the subject. Ultimately, the participant expresses a desire to grasp key concepts and is encouraged to consult their textbook for clarity.
Derek M
New to physics and attempting to get my feet wet reading "The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. Looking to get some clarification on what I hope is a simple concept regarding a particle in motion.

The author introduces the use of "clocks" to represent the magnitude and phase of a particles wave function. Shown below is a figure from the book showing a cluster of clocks corresponding to a particle that is initially located within the clusters vicinity. The author states that as each clock in the cluster makes its way to X, it is wound forward. Due to the way each clock has been wound backwards relative to its position in the original cluster, every clock that reaches X has its clock hand pointing in exactly the same direction. They all add together constructively which represents a high probability of finding the particle at X.
20171012_162216.jpg


This part I understand. My confusion is when the author suggests that the clocks only add together constructively at all points left of X for a distance equal to the length of the original cluster. Outside of that region the clocks largely cancel out. When I picture in my head the clocks winding forward as they move to a point anywhere between the original cluster and X it seems to me that they add together constructively no matter where that point my be.

I hope I have explained my problem well enough and appreciate any insight into where I might be failing to grasp the concept.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, I don't have that book, but when the author talks about the clocks only adding constructively inside a certain region, it sounds like he is considering many waves of differing frequencies (wavelengths). Could that be the case?
 
Derek M said:
New to physics and attempting to get my feet wet reading "The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.
Are you aiming to learn physics or to learn about physics? Popular scientific books will give you a general flavour and a story of what is going on, but you should not expect to obtain any sort of working knowledge from them. If you want to learn physics, you should instead pick up real textbooks that actually aim at teaching the subject. Also, it is a much more tedious and demanding process than learning about physics is.
 
Orodruin said:
Are you aiming to learn physics or to learn about physics?

I guess ultimately I'm trying to understand some of the key concepts. It's quite possible I'm getting a head of myself. I do own a textbook, so I will look through it and determine if its contents are more aligned with my desired knowledge. Thank you for the insight.
 
sandy stone said:
Sorry, I don't have that book, but when the author talks about the clocks only adding constructively inside a certain region, it sounds like he is considering many waves of differing frequencies (wavelengths). Could that be the case?

From what I can tell I don't think this is the case. Thank you for the suggestion though.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
759
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K