- #1

- 799

- 65

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter madness
- Start date

- #1

- 799

- 65

- #2

- 2,111

- 18

Yes. De Broglie waves without SE are often quite confusing semiclassical stuff. SE makes it all more precise.Every particle has a characteristic wavelength according to de Broglie. Is this the wavelength for the solution to the schrodinger equation for that particle?

They are not the same. Solutions of Maxwell's equations are different thing than solutions of Shrodinger's equation. You cannot use SE for light, since it it works only for nonrelativistic particles. In fact I'm not even sure what works for light in quantum theory, but at least it is not the SE. It could be that the propagator approach is the one that is used, not differential equations. Somebody may correct me in this.However, this is not the same wave as the solution to the schrodinger equation (is it?) since the schrodinger equation gives complex (and hence non-physical) solutions.

Quantum mechanical superposition is behind it all. In classical theory particle is in some location [tex]x[/tex]. In quantum theory there is a complex number associated with each possible location of the particle, that is [tex]\Psi(x)[/tex]. This becomes the wave function. The wave function is very different from physical fields such as EM field.So what kind of waves are particles?

Haha. I've been trying to ask about the same thing. This is more difficult than it looks. You can pass courses on quantum mechanics without getting answer to what photons are.Is a photon both a quantum mechanical matter wave and an electromagnetic wave at the same time?

- #3

- 11,473

- 4,044

- #4

- 799

- 65

- #5

- 11,473

- 4,044

For that, check out Secs. III, IV, and V.

- #6

- 799

- 65

- #7

- 11,473

- 4,044

- #8

- 2,111

- 18

- #9

- 799

- 65

- #10

- 2,111

- 18

You don't need to believe this of course, probably I wouldn't if I was you. Just try to study quantum mechanics more, and keep these thoughts in your mind at the same time. Hopefully this starts to make more sense then.

- #11

- 799

- 65

- #12

- 35,847

- 4,676

I think this is another issue of the http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/11/misconception-of-heisenberg-uncertainty.html" [Broken]. You are trying to apply this to a **single** measurement, which isn't where the HUP directly manifest itself. Note that if you look at the expression for the uncertainty in position and momentum, you'll see that they clearly involved "average" values and the "average of a square" values. These things are not well-defined when you are trying to determine just ONE value of the position and THEN, ONE value of the momentum. In each of these, the uncertainties that are associated with the single value of the position and the single value of the momentum are the instrumentation uncertainty (or accuracy), and NOT the HUP.

It is why it isn't making sense or difficult to comprehend. The HUP has nothing to do with instrumentation accuracy, i.e. how you measure it. You could use a photon, or in the case of a single slit, use how much the additional momentum that appear in the perpendicular direction to the slit. You do not get the HUP in just one single measurement of the observable.

Zz.

It is why it isn't making sense or difficult to comprehend. The HUP has nothing to do with instrumentation accuracy, i.e. how you measure it. You could use a photon, or in the case of a single slit, use how much the additional momentum that appear in the perpendicular direction to the slit. You do not get the HUP in just one single measurement of the observable.

Zz.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #13

- 799

- 65

Share: