Increase in amplitude of an electron wave

SteveinLondon
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Like photons, all particles have a wave/particle duality, so when energy is added to an electron, say in a particle accelerator, why does the "amplitude" of the electron wave never increase (say as an increase in the actual number of electrons) - why is it that the energy added always just comes out in the form of a reduction in wavelength of the single electron, keeping the number of electrons at "1"? It seems to be the same with photons - whenever energy is added it's just the frequency that changes, never the amplitude/intensity, as would happen with a wave? For example - if we added energy to a water wave, it would get physically bigger - it's amplitude would increase.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For photons it is more complicated, depending on how the energy is added. For example, in a laser the frequency stays the same, but the amplitude is increased.
 
The wavefunction of a particle must satisfy the following condition:
<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\Psi|^2 dx = 1<br />
Basically, this means that the total probability of finding the particle anywhere is one. It doesn't really make sense otherwise.

If you were to increase the amplitude of the wave by 2 everywhere, for example, the integral would be equal to 4. That essentially means there are now 4 particles.
 
SteveinLondon said:
Like photons, all particles have a wave/particle duality, so when energy is added to an electron, say in a particle accelerator, why does the "amplitude" of the electron wave never increase (say as an increase in the actual number of electrons) - why is it that the energy added always just comes out in the form of a reduction in wavelength of the single electron, keeping the number of electrons at "1"? It seems to be the same with photons - whenever energy is added it's just the frequency that changes, never the amplitude/intensity, as would happen with a wave? For example - if we added energy to a water wave, it would get physically bigger - it's amplitude would increase.

The amplitude is of probabilities (of locating photon) not frequency/energy. This "wave" is just a mathematical tool not any actual wave.

The probabilities as Browne suggests must equal one. However it does not have to be four particles, just one particle
with probabilities re-normalized.
 
What does "probabilities normalized" mean?
 
SteveinLondon said:
What does "probabilities normalized" mean?

the summation/integral brought back to one...

a sum above 1 would mean the same particle showing up at two places at the same time...
 
Last edited:
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top