Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Do wave packets really represent a free particle?

Tags:
  1. Apr 18, 2017 #1

    referframe

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Given a source of electrons, like from an electron gun. Physicists call these freely traveling particles and often use a Gaussian wave packet to represent them with the group velocity being precisely defined as the velocity of the center of the packets. But if we do not measure the position of the particle then we have no idea where the "center of the packet" is and if we do measure the position of the particle then the wave function, because of dispersion, becomes an expanding spherical wave with basically a zero or undefined group velocity.

    So does nature really know about traveling, well-defined wave packets?

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2017 #2

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is there really such a thing as a 'free' particle ?

    A wave packet in a harmonic potential is very lile a classical particle in same.
     
  4. Apr 19, 2017 #3

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is also a third possibility, that we measure both position and momentum, but neither with perfect precision. That's consistent with Heisenberg uncertainty relations, and that's what actually happens in nature. In this way the wave function can be a Gaussian with a finite width in both position and momentum space.
     
  5. Apr 19, 2017 #4
    Electrons from a gun controlled by applied voltage have centered velocity and centered time of ejection. CRT or Braun tubes prove it.
    Something quantum leaving such and such time travelling with such and such velocity do not seem funny to me.
     
  6. Apr 19, 2017 #5

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A free particle is defined as a particle governed by a Hamiltonian in which the potential is 0.

    Wave packets do represent free particles, but are not the only wave functions of a free particle.
     
  7. Apr 19, 2017 #6

    ftr

    User Avatar

    So what is it in the model that destroys the wave-packet when in a potential, for example.
     
  8. Apr 20, 2017 #7
    For example, diffusing Gaussian wave packet could represent a free particle and a standing Gaussian wave packet represents a particle in the ground state of harmonic oscillator.
     
  9. Apr 20, 2017 #8

    kith

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The statement was that a particle is called free if the potential is zero, not that wavepackets occur only for free particles. A particle which oscillates in a harmonic potential is also represented by a wavepacket.
     
  10. Apr 20, 2017 #9

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

  11. Apr 20, 2017 #10

    ftr

    User Avatar

    I think I misunderstood his sentence, he usually writes in clear english, maybe he was in a hurry.
     
  12. Apr 20, 2017 #11

    ftr

    User Avatar

    So it seems we can take the whole wave to represent the "particle" at least sometimes, right? What is the analog in QFT.
     
  13. Apr 20, 2017 #12

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    It's not clear to me what you mean when you say `we can take the whole wave to represent the "particle"'. The clear meaning of a single-particle wave function in non-relativistic QT is that its modulus squared is the probability distribution for the position of the particle at a given time.

    In relativistic QT wave packets make only sense for free particle, defining asymptotic free states. That's why one needs QFT to define relativistic QT of interacting particles in a proper way. The reason is that at relativistic scattering energies you always have the possibility that particles get created or destroyed in the process, i.e., you need a formalism that describes reactions, where the particle number changes, and the most convenient description is thus in terms of QFT.
     
  14. Apr 20, 2017 #13

    ftr

    User Avatar

    That is what I mean, why not think about the wave in ordinary QM the same as relativistic free particle.
     
  15. Apr 20, 2017 #14

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    As I said, if you have relativistic particles there's always the chance to create and destroy particles in scattering processes. That's the reason, why already a proper interpretation of a single-particle wave function in an external potential for relativistic wave equations is difficult if not impossible. That's why you need a theory taking the production and destruction of particles in scattering processes into account, and the most simple way to formulate such a theory is quantum field theory.
     
  16. May 2, 2017 #15

    Mark Harder

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    An example of a particle in a bound state (i.e. not a free particle) is an electron constrained by the coulombic potential of an atomic nucleus. The probability densities of position are given by more complicated distributions than a simple Gaussian packet. The clouds of electrons in atoms are called orbitals. Their structure is given by solutions of the Schroedinger equation in terms of special functions that have nodes and maxima at positions about the nucleus.
     
  17. May 2, 2017 #16

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Also see here for a Gaussian wave packet spreading while bouncing back and forth between the walls of an infinite square well:

    http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/animations/swdecay.html

    And a circular orbit wave packet in a Coulomb potential, constructed from several hydrogen energy levels:

    http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/animations/decay.html
     
  18. May 2, 2017 #17

    ftr

    User Avatar

    Of course, That is well known. My question was in a response to a misunderstanding to what atyy said.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Do wave packets really represent a free particle?
Loading...