Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Tracks in particle detectors and quantum paths

  1. Jun 20, 2014 #1
    How are the track leftt say by an electron in a cloud chamber and its wave function undefined trajectory related exactly?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 20, 2014 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Related exactly? Pretty much the same way they are related approximately.

    This is a terribly vague question. You'll need to be more specific if you want any hope of getting the answer you are looking for. If it helps, the laws of quantum mechanics apply to baseballs and planets too.
     
  4. Jun 20, 2014 #3

    CWatters

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Very different scales.
     
  5. Jun 20, 2014 #4
    Hi V50, I was specifically concerned about the quantum picture of particles such as electrons not having a defined trajectory, i.e. double slit settings(thus my placing the question in the QM subforum) in contrast with the clear path followed by an electron as shown in the tracks left in cloud chambers. What is the commonly given explanation to this apparent contrast?
     
  6. Jun 20, 2014 #5
    I was interested in a discussion about collapse, the measurement problem or even the quantum Zeno effect, but I can see that it is going to be mighty hard here in general physics.
     
  7. Jun 20, 2014 #6

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The question of why linear tracks appear in cloud chambers is known as the Mott problem, named after the physicist who first investigated it in the 1920s. I found two discussions of it:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2665.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mott_problem
     
  8. Jun 20, 2014 #7

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Moved to Quantum Physics.
     
  9. Jun 20, 2014 #8
    Thanks for the pertinent reference to the Mott problem, I very vaguely remember having read about it but had completely forgotten it. I'll take some time to read the references through.
     
  10. Jun 20, 2014 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is a terrible concept. There are large number of situations where the classical picture of electron trajectory works! Look at the description we use to describe the beam physics for particle accelerators! They are all classical! Beam physics codes that we use, such as PAMELA, to track electron beams all consider them to be classical particles. The electron analyzers that are used to measure and detect photoelectrons, all considered these electrons having classical trajectories from the emitting surface all the way to the CCD plate!

    Why would the description for the tracks in such particle detectors be any different?

    Zz.
     
  11. Jun 20, 2014 #10

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Well, let me quote Bohr's paraphrase of Einstein's statement of the problem:

     
  12. Jun 20, 2014 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I'm not sure I understand the point in relation to what I wrote.

    A laser makes a very predictable path for the photons in its beam. Do you represent that with "spherical waves"? Why spherical waves? Why not plane waves as we would normally consider?

    Secondly, I don't see how this has anything to do with the "wavefunction" that we use to describe a quantum system.

    Zz.
     
  13. Jun 20, 2014 #12

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I thought the original question was about tracks in a cloud chamber, which is what the Bohr quote is about.
     
  14. Jun 20, 2014 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    It was, but you quoted that in relation to my response. I don't know what the point is in that context. Bohr's quote offered no insight into how to treat this problem other than rephrasing what Einstein has said.

    It doesn't change the FACT that we do treat electrons as classical particles in many instances, with sufficient accuracy that the very device that we use to study elementary/high energy physics particles (particle colliders), were modeled with classical trajectories.

    Zz.
     
  15. Jun 20, 2014 #14

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I was trying to get back to what the actual puzzle was. I was trying to say that I think your response didn't actually address it.

    It's a statement of what the puzzle is, it's not a statement of the solution. Your remarks, bringing up lasers, for instance, don't seem relevant. The explanation for why lasers seem to have definite tracks doesn't apply to particles in a cloud chamber. Or at least, I don't see any connection.

    Once again, quoting one of the original researchers, Mott:

     
  16. Jun 20, 2014 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Why not? If I can model electron trajectory classically in an accelerator, what's the difference with doing it in a detector or cloud chamber? It is the same thing.

    I brought up lasers because the statement you quoted brought up "spherical waves", which was odd if that is the ONLY way to describe things. I brought up the instance where we DO have waves, i.e. light, in a laser, and we can still describe its trajectory very well when we have plane waves. So the laser was a counter example of a "wave" with definite trajectory. Waves do not always have to be spherical where the path diverges.

    Take note that if the particles that we detect at the detectors can't be modeled classically as far as its trajectories are concerned, the whole concept of path reconstruction that is so common in elementary particle physics experiments can be thrown out of the window.

    Zz.
     
  17. Jun 20, 2014 #16

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The link that I gave describes how the problem has been tackled
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2665.pdf

    To quote from the conclusion:
     
  18. Jun 20, 2014 #17

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Well, there might be a similar question as to why it's possible to model electron trajectories classically in an accelerator. So maybe they are related.

    The point is that, at least with a simplified model of alpha decay, the alpha particle leaves the nucleus in a spherical wave. Nobody was suggesting that ALL problems are spherically symmetric.

    The Mott problem is about reconciling a spherically symmetric model with outcomes that very much are not spherically symmetric. I just don't see the relevance of bringing up lasers. It's as if I said "How can a needle float on water, when it's made of steel?" and you answered by saying "Corks float, too, and they're not made of steel."

    I don't think that there is any doubt about the use of particle tracks. The question is how to reconcile the observations of tracks and definite trajectories with the theory, which does not appear to have definite trajectories.
     
  19. Jun 20, 2014 #18

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The problem can be treated as continuous approximate measurement of a quantum wave function.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0512069
    A Dynamical Theory of Quantum Measurement and Spontaneous Localization
    V. P. Belavkin

    We develop a rigorous treatment of discontinuous stochastic unitary evolution for a system of quantum particles that interacts singularly with quantum "bubbles" at random instants of time. This model of a "cloud chamber" allows to watch and follow with a quantum particle along the trajectory in the cloud chamber by sequential unsharp localization of spontaneous scatterings of the bubbles. Thus, the continuous reduction and spontaneous localization theory is obtained as the result of quantum filtering theory, i.e., a theory describing the conditioning of the a priori quantum state by the measurement data. We show that in the case of indistinguishable particles the a posteriori dynamics is mixing, giving rise to an irreversible Boltzmann-type reduction equation. The latter coincides with the nonstochastic Schroedinger equation only in the mean field approximation, whereas the central limit yields Gaussian mixing fluctuations described by stochastic reduction equations of diffusive type.


    Side note: Why can a single free particle often be treated as if there is a classical distribution of trajectories, without resorting to a Bohmian interpretation? In general this is not possible. The closest thing to a classical probability distribution is the Wigner function, but it is not a probability distribution because it is not positive. However, for a Gaussian wave function, the Wigner function is positive, and if the particle is free, the time evolution of the function is the same as the classical Liouville equation. This is why a single free particle can often be treated as if there is a classical distribution of trajectories.

    Furthermore, even when the wave function is not Gaussian, although it is wrong to consider classical trajectories, the fully quantum derivation and the classical derivation sometimes lead to the same formula. This should be considered a lucky accident, just like Rutherford scattering for an inverse-square potential gives the same results whether it is treated classically or quantum mechanically.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  20. Jun 20, 2014 #19
    So for example in bubble chambers, is there any reason to believe the electron is not exactly in the center of those bubbles and not travailing over continuous path those bubbles describe?

    Every time we can measure it we see defined continuous trajectories, every time we can not measure it, we assume it's doing something else. Inability to measure with some desired precision is usually referred to as "margin of error", it's a property of measuring tools, not really a property of what is being measured. Why then in QM this "margin of error" is considered to be an actual property of what is being measured, rather than just a consequence of inadequate measuring tools?
     
  21. Jun 20, 2014 #20

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    If you are referring to instrumentation uncertainty versus the Heisenberg uncertainty, this has been discussed and described numerous times already on here. They are not the same thing.

    Otherwise, I see no relevance with the topic of this thread.

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Tracks in particle detectors and quantum paths
  1. Particle Path (Replies: 1)

Loading...