Thought experiment about superposition.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment concerning the localization of an electron using magnetic fields and the implications for quantum mechanics, particularly regarding superposition and the freedom of motion of particles before measurement. The scope includes theoretical considerations and conceptual clarifications within quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if an electron could be confined to a very small space, it might be possible to assert with 100% probability that the electron was present before and after a measurement, potentially disproving its freedom of motion.
  • Another participant counters that in quantum mechanics, particularly with the delta function potential well, such localization cannot be achieved with absolute certainty due to the energy requirements and the creation of additional particles from the vacuum.
  • A further response elaborates that localizing the electron requires increasing energy, which diverges to infinity as the size of confinement decreases, thus making 100% localization physically unrealizable.
  • One participant cautions against classical interpretations of electron behavior, emphasizing that quantum mechanics describes probabilities rather than certainties regarding position and motion.
  • It is noted that even if a definite position state could be achieved, it would still not disprove the concept of superposition, as the state would be a superposition of momentum states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of localizing an electron with certainty and the implications of such localization for quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on the validity of the initial proposal regarding the electron's freedom of motion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the assumptions about localization and the energy implications of confining an electron, as well as the challenges in reconciling classical and quantum interpretations of particle behavior.

rasp
Messages
117
Reaction score
3
Suppose I could restrict an electron to a very small space byfor example using multiple magnetic fields, then could I not be sure with 100% probability that the electron was there before and after a measurement? Wouldn’t such a experimental set up dis prove the idea that the electron had freedom of motion before the measurement?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rasp said:
Suppose I could restrict an electron to a very small space byfor example using multiple magnetic fields, then could I not be sure with 100% probability that the electron was there before and after a measurement?

You cannot do so to a 100% certain size. If you continue to localize the electron, the energy you would require to do so would spontaneously create more particles out of the vacuum and cause more uncertainty in your experiment. .

In fact, I actually don't need to cite the relativistic answer (relevant to our universe) to invalidate your conclusions. If you approximate your magnetic fields as an infinite potential well in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, then by localizing your magnetic fields you must input increasing energy to support an electron in its ground state. As you can see from the explicit value for the energy of an electron in the ground state of an infinite well, this energy increases as 1/L^2 with decreasing size L, so the energy you need to input to make position 100% localized diverges to infinity.
 
rasp said:
Suppose I could restrict an electron to a very small space by for example using multiple magnetic fields, then could I not be sure with 100% probability that the electron was there before and after a measurement? Wouldn’t such a experimental set up disprove the idea that the electron had freedom of motion before the measurement?
There is a somewhat related discussion starting at post #3 of https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/evolution-of-the-wavefunction.960445/ and consider especially the negative delta function case: ##V(x)=-\delta(x-X_0)##.

You also want to be very cautious about phrases like "the electron had freedom of movement before the measurement"; these will tempt you into classical assumptions about how electrons behave, and that's just not how it is. Quantum mechanics actually says something more along the lines of "this is the probability of finding it this far from where we last found it", and there is no physically realizable way of reducing the "this far" to zero.

Finally, the physically unrealizable state in which the next position measurement is guaranteed to yield the same result as the last one is a superposition of momentum states... so even if you could realize that single definite position state, you still wouldn't have disproved superposition.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K