- #1

- 636

- 11

- Thread starter Jimmy87
- Start date

- #1

- 636

- 11

- #2

UltrafastPED

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 1,912

- 216

There is a very simple Fourier analysis theorem which describes the time-bandwidth relationship - and the HUP is a QM version of this.

For the case of electrons there are additional constraints: Coulomb repulsion, Pauli exclusion principle.

- #3

- 5,601

- 40

Particles, any particles, are quanta of fields, local effects we can detect. The theoretical fields are the fields of quantum field theory in the standard model of particle physics not actual particles that can be detected. Particles are not waves. Particles are what we detect in space.

A conventional interpretation of the wave function is associated not with individual particles but rather with the probability for finding a particle at a particular position. In this interpretation, the object always is a particle, not a wave, and the wave aspect is a mathematical abstraction used in the model to make probability calculations.

The relationship between a system's Schrodinger wave function and the observable properties of the system is non-deterministic. Fourier decomposition will always decompose a wave function into an infinite series of equivalent functions.

Example:

The wave function describes not a single scattering particle but an ensemble of similarly perpared particles. Quantum theory predicts the statistical frequencies of the various angles through which a particle may be scattered.

Example: [an example I liked from a discussion in these forums]

A simple way to 'decompose' is via trig functions like Sin2x = 2SinXCosX.....and you can make such equivalents endlessly.....Even better, if you know a little about Fourier transforms, there are more complete illustrations [pictures] showing such decomposition here:Bouncing a photon off an atom tells us nothing about any [Heisenberg] uncertainties. We must bounce many ‘identically’ prepared photons off like atoms in order to get the statistical distributions of atomic position measurements and atomic momentum measurements. What we call "uncertainty" is a property of a statistical distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_decomposition.

Search 'particle' in these forums or 'Heisenberg Uncertainty' and you'll have dozens of pages of explanations.....

- #4

- 636

- 11

Thanks for your reply. So, are all electrons within an atom (which has a finite space) wave packets (i.e. each electron is composed of a series of multiple waves)?

There is a very simple Fourier analysis theorem which describes the time-bandwidth relationship - and the HUP is a QM version of this.

For the case of electrons there are additional constraints: Coulomb repulsion, Pauli exclusion principle.

- #5

UltrafastPED

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 1,912

- 216

Well, it is best to think of them as waves ... they are certainly not localized when they are part of an atom.Thanks for your reply. So, are all electrons within an atom (which has a finite space) wave packets (i.e. each electron is composed of a series of multiple waves)?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electron_orbitals.svg

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration

- #6

- 5,601

- 40

Those are not the electrons themselves but rather the probability distribution their location. Those take the form of standing waves, analogous to the resonant waves of a violin string. [edit: Such local distribution of electrons is sometimes called the electron cloud.]So, are all electrons within an atom (which has a finite space) wave packets (i.e. each electron is composed of a series of multiple waves)?

Electrons in any any structure, an atom or a lattice like a metal, are localized, that is confined but not to a point. The wave behavior makes them behave as if they have different vibrational size. But again, all we detect are point particles.

- #7

- 636

- 11

Thanks for all your answers. So this wave function that keeps cropping up when I read, is this just used to calculate the probability of finding an electron within an atom? A description I have read for an electron using QM is that it is like a wave in that you can fit it around a nucleus in such a way that it doesn't cancel itself and this would be an allowed energy level. The amplitudes of the waves are then points where it is most likely to materialise. Is that a good way of thinking about it? Many different people describe it in so many different ways which makes it very confusing for me.Those are not the electrons themselves but rather the probability distribution their location. Those take the form of standing waves, analogous to the resonant waves of a violin string. [edit: Such local distribution of electrons is sometimes called the electron cloud.]

Electrons in any any structure, an atom or a lattice like a metal, are localized, that is confined but not to a point. The wave behavior makes them behave as if they have different vibrational size. But again, all we detect are point particles.

- #8

- 5,601

- 40

Wikipedia says this:

Remember thatThe Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the possible wave functions of a system and how they dynamically change in time. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wave function is. Interpretations of quantum mechanics address questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.

. QM does not define observables [experimental detections] of wavelike characteristics until detected locally.all particles are point like when detected but behave as wavelike otherwise

If an electron, for example, were truly free, not interacting with any other particles, it's wave would extend across the universe to the cosmological horizon. That puts a boundary on the wave. Think of a limp string just hanging; it can't vibrate and have much in the way of particle characteristics,no energy. But string it tight in a violin,fix the ends firmly, now it resonates when plucked because it can store energy, it has characteristics!! That's a view that comes from both string theory and cosmology.

Yes, that's what the Wikipedia quote implies....interpretations vary!! Here are two of my favorites, from other discussions in these forums:Many different people describe it in so many different ways which makes it very confusing for me.

Matter [particles] is that which has localized mass-energy, while spacetime does not.

Particles appear in rare situations, namely when they are registered.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 860

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 128

- Views
- 17K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 980

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K