How is the wavefunction defined in the double slit experiment for electrons?

zeta101
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Hi, just need a quick confirmation I am right with something! :)

If we are considering electrons (for example) going through the double slit experiment one at a time would it be correct to define the wavefunction for the electron as follows?

\Ket{\Psi} = C_1\Ket{\phi_1} + C_2\Ket{\phi_2}

where \Ket{\phi_1} and \Ket{\phi_2} are eigenfunctions representing the electron going trhough slit 1 or slit 2 respectively and the C's are just some constants.

Actually, about the C's, would they be defined as follows?

C_1 = 1/ |\Ket{\phi_1}|^2

and etc for the other C?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hmmm, my kets didnt come out, but still means the same thing!

TIA for any replies!
 
zeta101 said:
hmmm, my kets didnt come out, but still means the same thing!

TIA for any replies!

Yes,quantum phenomenology requires that the state vector of the system be written as a linear combination of vectors for the each slit (event) which are themselves normed and we have reasons to believe to mutual ortogonal.
Write |\Psi>=C_{1}|\phi_{1}>+C_{2}|\phi_{2}> and then use Dirac trick apply the corresponding "bra" .Use normalization for each vector and u can come up with the interpretation of those constants in terms of probabilities.
For the expression of each constant,apply 2 times the 2 "bra"s corresponding to |\phi_{1}> and |\phi_{2}> ans use again the normalizations and the orthogonality between vectors.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top