Graduate Can Quantum Mechanics Calculate the Frequency of an Atomic Clock?

Click For Summary
Quantum mechanics cannot calculate the frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz from first principles, as this frequency is a defined value rather than a calculable one. The second is a man-made quantity chosen by the BIPM and could theoretically be any number of oscillations of the cesium hyperfine transition. Attempts to derive this frequency from pre-1967 definitions are also futile due to the complexity of the problem, which involves multiple bodies and lacks classical solutions. Additionally, the uncertainty in the mass of the electron is too significant to yield precise results. Thus, while quantum mechanics can calculate energy levels, it cannot achieve the precision required to match the defined frequency of the second.
Bruce Harvey
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Can Quantum mechanics calculate the 9192631770 Hz frequency from first principles.
I have searched in vain for a detailed calculation of the frequency 9192631770 Hz from basic physical constants using Quantum Mechanics.
Can anyone help with this please
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bruce Harvey said:
Summary:: Can Quantum mechanics calculate the 9192631770 Hz frequency from first principles.

I have searched in vain for a detailed calculation of the frequency 9192631770 Hz from basic physical constants using Quantum Mechanics.
Can anyone help with this please
There is no such calculation. It is a definition. The second is a man-made quantity and could be any number of oscillations of the Caesium hyperfine transition. The BIPM picked a number and defined it thus.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and jim mcnamara
Dale is right, it's a definition.

However, what you may have meant is if 9,192,631,770 was calculable using the pre-1967 definitions. The answer is still no. This is a 56-body problem and there is not even a classical solution for 3 bodies. It would have to be calculated numerically and that is well beyond today's generation of computers, and the next, and the one after that.

More fundamentally, the mass of the electron is known 10x worse than the number you are trying to calculate, so you will have an input uncertainty an order of magnitude too large. (If you could do the calculation, you could turn it around and use this to measure the electron's mass more precisely)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, dextercioby and PeroK
It is more than a number, it is a frequency corresponding to a coupling energy between the nuclear magnetic moment and the electron. Can QM calculate the energy levels of the doublet?
 
Bruce Harvey said:
It is more than a number, it is a frequency corresponding to a coupling energy between the nuclear magnetic moment and the electron.
I can quite confidently say that everyone who replied in this thread understands this quite well.

Bruce Harvey said:
Can QM calculate the energy levels of the doublet?
Yes, but not at the level of precision needed to match exactly the number used in the definition of the second. See @Vanadium 50's answer above for the explanation as to why this is the case.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, vanhees71, Dale and 1 other person
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K