Can diffraction be explained by quantisation?

  • I
  • Thread starter Jilang
  • Start date
  • #1
1,116
72
I was wondering if the diffraction pattern through a single slit could be explained as a consequence of quantisation of momentum transverse to the main direction of travel. I know that momentum gets quantised on confinement so does the confinement in a slit quantise the momentum so that only certain final directions of the particle are likely?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
35,976
12,841
Not directly, as you don't establish a standing wave in your slit. The concepts are related, of course, and the momentum distribution afterwards is the Fourier transformation of the slit pattern (for small angles, and up to constants).
 
  • #3
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2021 Award
28,215
12,858
You can also get diffraction with purely classical water waves.
 
  • #4
1,116
72
Not directly, as you don't establish a standing wave in your slit.
Why is it different to a potential well? Is there just not enough time for a standing wave to establish?
 
  • #6
908
223
Wow that is a great QM education article for learners.

Printed.

Thanks for posting.
 
  • #7
1,116
72
It is a consequence of the uncertainty relations:
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1024152/files/0703126.pdf

Thanks
Bill
The author's approach isn't one generally encountered, so thanks for posting it. In the single slit there is obviously a change in the transerve momentum of the particle. How is the momentum conserved? Does the the particle start bouncing around between the sides of the well?
 
  • #8
10,071
3,185
The author's approach isn't one generally encountered, so thanks for posting it. In the single slit there is obviously a change in the transerve momentum of the particle. How is the momentum conserved? Does the the particle start bouncing around between the sides of the well?

Momentum is not conserved - it is changed by the observation. It does not bounce around.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #9
1,116
72
Momentum is not conserved - it is changed by the observation. It does not bounce around.

Thanks
Bill
I thought momentum was always conserved. Doesnt the confinement introduce the uncertainty into the momentum rather than the observation?
 
  • #10
908
223
Confinement times momentum = constant = Heisenberg UP.
 
  • #11
10,071
3,185
I thought momentum was always conserved.

In QM it isn't because of the HUP. By Ehrenfests theorem its conserved on the average. The uncertainty is introduced by the fact going through a slit means just behind the slit it's position is very certain so by the HUP its momentum is unknown. But since KE is conserved this means its velocity is unchanged so it's direction is uncertain. That's why you get a diffraction pattern.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #12
35,976
12,841
In QM it isn't because of the HUP. By Ehrenfests theorem its conserved on the average. The uncertainty is introduced by the fact going through a slit means just behind the slit it's position is very certain so by the HUP its momentum is unknown. But since KE is conserved this means its velocity is unchanged so it's direction is uncertain. That's why you get a diffraction pattern.

Thanks
Bill
Momentum is conserved exactly in every interaction. Your measurement system will provide any apparent change of momentum, and you rarely care about the momentum of the system, so it looks like your momentum changed. But total momentum was always constant.
 
  • Like
Likes Doc Al and Jilang
  • #13
10,071
3,185
Your measurement system will provide any apparent change of momentum, and you rarely care about the momentum of the system, so it looks like your momentum changed. But total momentum was always constant.

Hmmm. Good point.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #14
1,116
72
Are you saying that it's the measuring device rather than the slit that provides the means of compensating for the momentum change?
 
  • #15
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2021 Award
20,426
11,188
No, there's an interaction of the particles with the material making up the slits and thus the particles that hit this material transfer momentum to it. Of course, for any closed system momentum is conserved, but particles interacting with the material are not a closed system. The usual treatment of course hides the microscopic picture by just imposing semiclassical boundary conditions, which is an effective description of the very complicated microscopic interactions, and it's accurate enough to understand the measured pattern on the screen. In Fraunhofer observation you get (as in the Kirchhoff approximation of diffraction in classical optics) just the Fourier transform of the slits (e.g., a sinc function for the single slit).
 
  • Like
Likes Jilang and bhobba
  • #16
1,116
72
So there is something akin to bouncing going on and it would seem that some transfers of momentum are more likely than others.
 
  • #17
10,071
3,185
So there is something akin to bouncing going on and it would seem that some transfers of momentum are more likely than others.

How you draw that conclusion I can't follow.

Its as I said, and the link I gave said, due to the uncertainty relations the momentum is uncertain - in fact any value is equally likely - see equation 8. The particle is not a closed system so its momentum can change, although as MFB correctly pointed out in the interaction overall momentum must be conserved.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #18
1,116
72
My original question pertained to the diffraction pattern. Equation 8 appears only applicable to the infinitesimally narrow slit. Please see equation 18.
 
  • #19
10,071
3,185
My original question pertained to the diffraction pattern. Equation 8 appears only applicable to the infinitesimally narrow slit. Please see equation 18.

Your point being?

It uses the infinitesimal slit to derive the finite one.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #20
1,116
72
Your point being?
The point being that some changes in momentum are more likely than others.
 
  • #21
10,071
3,185
The point being that some changes in momentum are more likely than others.

For a finite slit sure. It pretty much follows from the HUP. The wider the slit the less likely the momentum will change ie a large change is less likely than a small one. For an infinitesimal one any momentum is equally likely - and that can be used to derive the finite case.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #22
1,116
72
It's the periodicity that's interesting. The HUP doesn't give that. I'm more interested in how the wavefunction becomes modified within the slit.
 
  • #23
10,071
3,185
It's the periodicity that's interesting. The HUP doesn't give that. I'm more interested in how the wavefunction becomes modified within the slit.

It is the same as passing through an infinitesimal slit at each point and you take the superposition. Seems rather obvious to me. I don't know what more can be said.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #24
1,116
72
We might discuss how the wavefunction becomes modified in the slit.
 
  • #25
10,071
3,185
We might discuss how the wavefunction becomes modified in the slit.

Because each point acts like an infinitesimal slit - I don't see there is anything more to it.

You are trying to read more into it than there is.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #26
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2021 Award
20,426
11,188
As I tried to argue many times, the cited paper is not very accurate and partially may be misleading. The slit must have a finite width, and the plane waves have to be seen as a limit of a wave packet of finite width in momentum.
 
  • #27
10,071
3,185
As I tried to argue many times, the cited paper is not very accurate and partially may be misleading. The slit must have a finite width, and the plane waves have to be seen as a limit of a wave packet of finite width in momentum.

Sure:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2408

If the OP wants to pursue the more advanced analysis that's fine.

But we all have to start somewhere. Generally such things are done in steps.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #28
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2021 Award
20,426
11,188
Hm, that's slightly better. For the best treatment in the case of classical electromagnetism, see

A. Sommerfeld, Lectures on Theoretical Physics vol. 4 (Optics)

Since he solves the Helmholtz equation for the diffraction problem, you can just one-to-one copy it to the quantum mechanical case!
 
  • #29
10,071
3,185
Hm, that's slightly better.
Yes.

The point I am trying to get across to the OP is his original conjecture/query is not what is going on ie the following is off the mark:
I was wondering if the diffraction pattern through a single slit could be explained as a consequence of quantisation of momentum transverse to the main direction of travel. I know that momentum gets quantised on confinement so does the confinement in a slit quantise the momentum so that only certain final directions of the particle are likely?
Nor is it the following:
Does the the particle start bouncing around between the sides of the well?

As you correctly point out the complete analysis of the double slit is quite advanced. But can be grasped at a more elementary level providing some 'intuitive' ideas are used. That's all the quoted paper is doing.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #30
1,116
72
Thank you for your insightful reponses. It is clear to me now that momentum is transferred to the material of the slit and that some interactions/momentum transfers are more likely than others and that they depend on the width of the slit and the original momentum.
 
  • #31
10,071
3,185
I was wondering if the diffraction pattern through a single slit

The full answer is quite advanced but isn't along the of the slit quantizing the wave function etc. The paper I linked does not tell the full story but sometimes physics is like that - the answer depends on your level of sophistication.

Thanks
Bill
 

Related Threads on Can diffraction be explained by quantisation?

  • Last Post
3
Replies
84
Views
11K
G
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
733
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
761
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
665
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
862
Top