Confusion with Wikipedia text

In summary, the article discusses the difference between classical and quantum theories, and explains that in classical physics, probabiltites add, but in quantum physics they don't (in fact they sometimes cancel). Lagrange's and Hamilton's formulations of physics use generalized coordinates and momentum, and the product of these two variables has units of energy*time.
  • #1
omarshehab
6
0
I think my knowledge in QM is even less than elementary. For example, right now I am reading the following article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Here are my confusions about the text:

1. Section 'Quantum mechanics and classical physics', second paragraph: The line is "Essentially the difference boils down to the statement that quantum mechanics is coherent (addition of amplitudes), whereas classical theories are incoherent (addition of intensities).". I can't visualize what does it physically mean.
2. Section 'Theory', third paragraph: The line is "However, quantum mechanics does not pinpoint the exact values of a particle for its position and momentum (since they are conjugate pairs) or its energy and time (since they too are conjugate pairs); rather, it only provides a range of probabilities of where that particle might be given its momentum and momentum probability." I am clear with the conjugate pair of position and momentum. But how time and energy are also conjugate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF!

Hi omarshehab! Welcome to PF! :smile:
omarshehab said:
1. Section 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics"', second paragraph: The line is "Essentially the difference boils down to the statement that quantum mechanics is coherent (addition of amplitudes), whereas classical theories are incoherent (addition of intensities).". I can't visualize what does it physically mean.

Yes, it's very unclear.

(And it doesn't help that it follows on from "The main differences between classical and quantum theories have already been mentioned above in the remarks on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox." when that isn't "above"! :rolleyes:)

It physically means that in classical physics, probablitites add, but in quantum physics they don't (in fact they sometimes cancel) … the well-known experimental result which shows this is the double-slit experiment.

This wikipedia page is unclear … I strongly suggest you start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit instead. :smile:
… I am clear with the conjugate pair of position and momentum. But how time and energy are also conjugate?

Do you understand 4-vectors? If not, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-momentum and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-vector :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Regarding conjugate pairs: There are lots of ways to represent the coordinates of something in addition to good old x, y, z positional coordinates. For example, angles are often a good choice when dealing with rotational behavior. An appropriate choice of coordinates can make solving a problem easy.

The concept of generalized coordinates is critical for Lagrange's and Hamilton's formulations of physics. Lagrangian dynamics is written in terms of the Lagrangian [itex]L[/itex], the difference between the total kinetic and potential energy for the system; some generalized coordinates [itex]q[/itex]; and its time derivative [itex]\dot q[/itex], called generalized velocity.

The Hamiltonian formulation of physics extends Lagrangian dynamics. It starts with the Lagrangian [itex]L[/itex] and some set of generalized coordinates [itex]q[/itex]. Hamilton's formulation introduces the concept of generalized momentum [itex]p[/itex]. Each element of the generalized momentum vector is the partial derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to an element of the generalized velocity:

[tex]p_j = \frac {\partial L}{\partial \dot q_j}[/tex]

The generalized coordinates and generalized momentum form a conjugate pair. Since the Lagrangian L has units of energy, the product of generalized velocity and generalized momentum will also have units of energy. This means the product of generalized coordinates and generalized momentum will have units of energy*time. Any pair of variables that has units of energy*time is a candidate for forming a conjugate pair. (This is a necessary but not sufficient condition.)
 

1. What is the main cause of confusion when reading Wikipedia text?

The main cause of confusion when reading Wikipedia text is the collaborative nature of the platform. Anyone can contribute and edit the information, which can lead to inconsistencies, errors, and bias in the content.

2. How can I make sure the information on Wikipedia is accurate?

While Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for academic or scientific purposes, there are ways to verify the accuracy of the information. You can check the sources and references cited in the article, look for discussions and debates on the article's talk page, and cross-check the information with other reputable sources.

3. Is all information on Wikipedia equally trustworthy?

No, not all information on Wikipedia is equally trustworthy. As mentioned before, anyone can contribute and edit the content, so some articles may be more reliable than others. It is always important to critically evaluate the information and check multiple sources before accepting it as fact.

4. Why do some people consider Wikipedia to be unreliable?

Some people consider Wikipedia to be unreliable because of its open editing system and the potential for misinformation and bias. Additionally, since anyone can contribute, the quality and accuracy of the information may vary.

5. Can I use Wikipedia as a source for my research or academic work?

It is generally not recommended to use Wikipedia as a source for research or academic work. However, you can use it as a starting point to familiarize yourself with a topic and find other reputable sources to support your research.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
26
Views
686
Replies
6
Views
656
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
19
Views
651
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
376
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
668
Back
Top