How Is This Quantum Analogy Incorrect?

AI Thread Summary
The analogy comparing quantum units to money is flawed because quantum objects, like electrons or photons, cannot be divided into smaller units, unlike currency. In quantum mechanics, values are quantized and exist only in whole numbers, making the comparison to cents misleading. A more accurate analogy would liken quantum objects to whole coins, such as a penny, rather than fractional units. Additionally, quantum entities exhibit wave-particle duality, which further complicates the analogy. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for grasping quantum concepts effectively.
Logan Johnston
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


"Sometimes the idea of the quantum is compared to the units we use for money. A dollar can be divided into smaller units, where the cent is the smallest possible unit. How is this analogy incorrect?

Homework Equations


E=nhf

The Attempt at a Solution


My thought is that quantum cannot be described without whole numbers, unlike a cent which is a fraction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you have the right idea but the wrong conclusion. One, after all, IS an integer and you seem to be implying that it is not. The point is that if you take a quantum object such as an electron or a photon and say it is equivalent to a dollar, there ARE no 1 cent things inside it. So really, a correct analogy would be more like the quantum object being compared to the penny.
 
  • Like
Likes Logan Johnston
phinds said:
I think you have the right idea but the wrong conclusion. One, after all, IS an integer and you seem to be implying that it is not. The point is that if you take a quantum object such as an electron or a photon and say it is equivalent to a dollar, there ARE no 1 cent things inside it. So really, a correct analogy would be more like the quantum object being compared to the penny.

Excellent! That helped it to all click, thank you. :)
 
In the quantum world we need to think of objects being both waves and particles simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top