Can elementary particles truly be at rest in an E field?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether elementary particles can truly be at rest in an electric field, exploring the implications of motion, reference frames, and quantum mechanics. Participants examine both theoretical and experimental perspectives, including the effects of laser cooling and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that particles are always in some type of motion, questioning if this is merely an introductory physics concept.
  • It is noted that motion is relative, and particles can be considered at rest in certain reference frames.
  • One participant argues that there is no such thing as truly being at rest, citing extensive theoretical and experimental evidence against the concept.
  • Another participant mentions that only particles with rest mass can be at rest.
  • Laser cooling techniques have been discussed, with claims that atoms can be slowed to energies around 20 neV, but this is contingent on the reference frame.
  • Some participants highlight that elementary particles cannot be treated as classical point particles due to quantum theory, emphasizing the implications of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
  • Mathematical calculations are presented to illustrate the relationship between energy, momentum, and the uncertainty principle, suggesting that while theoretically no particle is at rest, practically particles can have energies very close to rest.
  • There is a suggestion that the classical approximation may be sufficient for certain situations, depending on the required accuracy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of rest in relation to particles, with no consensus reached on whether particles can truly be at rest. Multiple competing perspectives remain regarding the implications of quantum mechanics and reference frames.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes limitations related to definitions of rest, the dependence on reference frames, and unresolved mathematical steps regarding energy and momentum calculations.

nmsurobert
Messages
288
Reaction score
36
I'm working on E fields and particles in E fields, and I was wondering if particles are ever truly accelerated from rest. I did some reading on how accelerators work and cathode tubes, but it seems that particles are always in some type of motion. Is this just a thing for introductory level physics. Similar to "frictionless surface" type problems?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nmsurobert said:
... it seems that particles are always in some type of motion. ...
Motion is relative. They are at rest in some reference frame.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
nmsurobert said:
I'm working on E fields and particles in E fields, and I was wondering if particles are ever truly accelerated from rest. I did some reading on how accelerators work and cathode tubes, but it seems that particles are always in some type of motion. Is this just a thing for introductory level physics. Similar to "frictionless surface" type problems?

When something comes off with, say 2 eV of energy, and it is then accelerated to 10's, even 100's or 1000's of MeV, do you think that 2 eV initial energy has any significance when compared to making the approximation of it being initially "at rest"? Do you also consider the gravity from Alpha Centauri when calculating forces on a bridge?

Zz.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: phinds
nmsurobert said:
I'm working on E fields and particles in E fields, and I was wondering if particles are ever truly accelerated from rest.
There's no such thing as truly at rest. A lot of time and expense has been spent over the centuries searching for physical evidence of the concept, and nothing has been found. Moreover, the consequences have been thoroughly worked out theoretically and have withstood very extensive experimental testing.

No matter how precise and how developed your experimental efforts become, there is always going to be some experimental uncertainty, so one might quibble that. But as @ZapperZ points out, that can easily be made negligible.
 
Only particles that have (rest)mass can be in rest.
 
With laser cooling, atoms were slowed down to the energy of the order of 20 neV!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Henryk said:
With laser cooling, atoms were slowed down to the energy of the order of 20 neV!
But only in a particular reference frame.
 
awesome. thank you guys. sometime I have these random questions and its hard to find answers to them.
 
sophiecentaur said:
But only in a particular reference frame.
It's a thermal energy, it is in the center of mass frame of the gas.
 
  • #10
Henryk said:
With laser cooling, atoms were slowed down to the energy of the order of 20 neV!
However you should note that "elementary particles" cannot be described as classical point particles anymore, because you need quantum theory, and being "at rest" is impossible due to the Heisenberg uncertatinty relation ##\Delta x \Delta p_x \geq \hbar/2##. If the atom is in an energy eigenstate in the trap neither position nor momentum are determined and their probability distribution obey for sure the uncertainty relation. Even in the ground state the particles are never at rest!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #11
vanhees71 said:
However you should note that "elementary particles" cannot be described as classical point particles anymore, because you need quantum theory, and being "at rest" is impossible due to the Heisenberg uncertatinty relation ΔxΔpx≥ℏ/2ΔxΔpx≥ℏ/2\Delta x \Delta p_x \geq \hbar/2. If the atom is in an energy eigenstate in the trap neither position nor momentum are determined and their probability distribution obey for sure the uncertainty relation
Let's get some numbers, shall we?. Take, for example, cesium atoms, atomic mass 133 = ##2.2085^{-27}## kg. At the energy of 20 neV = ##3.2 \cdot 10^{-27}##. Substitute that into ##p^2 = 2 E \cdot m## and we get ##p^2 = 1.413^{-53}##.
Now, in the laser cooling experiment, the atoms are confined, that means the average momentum is zero. Therefore, ##<\Delta p^2> = p^2##. I.e. ##\Delta p = 3.76^{-27}## That allows us to calculate ## \Delta x = \frac 12 \hbar / \Delta p ##. Plug in the numbers and you get something like 14 nm!. Now, that is a billion times smaller than the space in which the atoms are confined in laser cooling experiments.
Yeah, THEORETICALLY no particle is at rest, but PRACTICALLY, a particle in a space that you can see with your eyes can have energy very close to rest.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #12
Sure, at some point the classical approximation gets right. It's a question of accuracy needed to describe the situation. In your case a resolution of 14 nm is enough, and the classical particle picture accurate enough.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K