This is a nonsensical question about wavefunctions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tomothy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavefunctions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of wavefunctions in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the question of what is oscillating when particles are described as waves. Participants explore the implications of wavefunctions as mathematical models and their interpretations in terms of probability and physical reality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the meaning of oscillation in the context of wavefunctions, suggesting that the wave function is merely a mathematical model and not indicative of physical oscillation.
  • Another participant proposes that what is oscillating is a particle field, though this claim prompts further inquiry into the definition of a particle field.
  • A later reply clarifies that oscillation can refer to the probability of finding a particle in a given region of space or over time, but this explanation raises further questions about the nature of the wavefunction itself.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether it is nonsensical to ask what is oscillating, with one participant emphasizing the need for clarity on what the wavefunction represents.
  • Another participant elaborates on the mathematical representation of the wavefunction, discussing its role as a probability amplitude and the implications of the minimal statistical interpretation, which remains a topic of debate.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of oscillation in wavefunctions, with multiple competing views and interpretations presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various interpretations of the wavefunction, including its mathematical representation and the implications of different interpretations, such as the minimal statistical interpretation. There are unresolved questions regarding the physical meaning of oscillation in this context.

tomothy
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
'If particles also behave as waves, then what is oscillating?'
I'm fairly sure that most people would consider this a nonsensical question. But I'm not sure why and I was hoping someone could clear this up for me.

My thoughts are:
The wave function is just a mathematical model, so don't panic.
Particles behave as waves as well, stuff isn't really either, it could really be something in between but nobody knows, so don't panic.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's oscillating is a particle field.
 
Obvious stupid question: what is a particle field?
 
tomothy said:
'If particles also behave as waves, then what is oscillating?'
I'm fairly sure that most people would consider this a nonsensical question. But I'm not sure why and I was hoping someone could clear this up for me.

My thoughts are:
The wave function is just a mathematical model, so don't panic.
Particles behave as waves as well, stuff isn't really either, it could really be something in between but nobody knows, so don't panic.

Thanks in advance.

Do you mean "what does it mean for ψ to oscillate in space?" This means the probability of finding the particle changes as you move through space at a given instant in time. The particle is more likely to be in some areas than others.

Do you mean "what does it mean for ψ to oscillate in time"? This means that, in a given region of space, the probability of finding the particle in that region changes over time (becoming more likely and then less likely and back again if the oscillation is sinusoidal).

This is a rather bare-bones explanation, and you need to be careful about you mean by "probability," but I think it conveys the basic answer to your question.
 
As Dirac_Man said, the wave function is basically a "probability wave".
 
Ah I think I get it. So no substance oscillates, but it's just a changing probability.
 
What I really meant by the question was not what is meant by ψ oscillating. But rather what is ψ? I get that it's a complex function which varies, varying probability amplitude etc. But what I mean to ask is if ψ is a wave-like function, describing a particle, then what is vibrating? Like you could describe a sound wave mathematically as some function, but the stuff that's oscillating is the air or whatever. So if a particle is also a wave, what is oscillating? Or rather, is it a nonsensical question to ask 'what is oscillating' in this context and that I should just shut up.
 
The wave function is the representation of a quantum wrt. to the position observable, i.e.,

\psi(t,\vec{x})=\langle \vec{x} | \psi,t \rangle,

where I've used the Schrödinger picture of time evolution. Operators that represent observables are time independent, the state vectors time dependent in this picture.

According to the minimal statistical interpretation, \psi(t,\vec{x}) is not identified with a physical quantity but has the one and only meaning to be the probability amplitude for the particle's position.

This means, it describes the probability to find, at time t a particle in a little volume element \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} around the position \vec{x}, given the particle is perpared in the (pure) state, represented by the state vector |\psi,t \rangle, i.e., the probability distribution of the particle's position is given by Born's rule,

P(t,\vec{x})=|\psi(t,\vec{x})|^2.

This "minimal interpretation" is of course subject of big debate, and I'm pretty sure, we'll have another one in this thread soon. On the other hand it is the one, which is sufficient to interpret the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to real experiments in the lab and at the same time the one that introduces the least assumptions on its meaning with the least possibility of leading to contradictions with other fundamental principles of physics, as causality and locality that are very successful in describing elementary particles in terms of (relativistic) quantum field theory.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K