DOCSLIB.ORG

Wave Function Collapse and Gravity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Wave function collapse and gravity Is Quantum Theory Exact? The quest for the spin-statistics connection violation and related items Frascati – IT 2nd - 5th July 2018 (Angelo Bassi – University of Trieste & INFN) In memory of GianCarlo Ghirardi (1935 - 2018) Decoherence • The Schrödinger equation is correct • Take system + environment • Let them interact for a while, for correlations to be diluted in the environment • Trace over the degrees of freedom of the environment • Output: classicality (in some sense) Quantum micro world Quantum macro world (but looks classical) Wave function collapse (models) • The Schrödinger equation is not 100% correct. • Correction are negligible for micro systems and relevant for macro objects • At the macroscopic level one recovers classicality Progressive breakdown of quantum linearity with increasing mass Quantum micro world “Classical” macro world Gravitational decoherence Schrödinger equation (at the Newtonian level) d i = H + V (x, t) dt t 0 t <latexit sha1_base64="ofnFfoibR07koi1ESsTyGrYy5t0=">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</latexit> | i − | i ~ Gravitational potential = the environment “OR” Decoherence: impossibility to detect quantum coherence Gravitational potential news & views GRAVITY Gravitational decoherenceWanna be quantum Superpositions of massive objects would be hard to spot on Earth even in well-isolated environments because of the decoherence induced by gravitational time dilation. Being a standard quantum effect, it does not affect the foundations of quantum Angelo Bassi mechanics (the measurement problem), in spite of its “unavoidability” ho wouldn’t like to experience quantum properties do not survive when Every experimentalist trying to measure a quantum life? We could do they combine to form macroscopic objects. quantum delocalization of material systems Wmany things in parallel: working, Why so? (the situation in which a quantum system There are interesting theoretical aspect to clarify: playing, doing sports, having a meal and Writing in Nature Physics Igor Pikovski is in a superposition of two diferent sleeping. All at the same time — at least as and colleagues1 argue that Earth’s locations at the same time) faces the same A. What is the correct form of the deocherencelong as no one is watchingB. us.Stochasticity We could gravitational is feldnot causes any delocalized state annoying problem: environmental noise, instantly teleport ourselves far away when of a quantum system to decohere and lose its technically known as decoherence2. Te annoyed with a situation. Many childhood quantum properties — even if the system is system’s position very rapidly couples with effect? dreams would come true.necessary However, it seems for isolateddecoherence from the rest of the world. And this the surrounding environment: its quantum we are bound to be classical; (I. Pikovski not a boring et al . Nature Physics efect seems- 2015) strong enough to be signifcant behaviour is diluted and ultimately lost upon life, but less exciting than a quantum one. A for objects on human scales. Te new element measurement. Delocalization of complex much-debated question among physicists is: is that this decoherence is triggered by time systems has only been observed when the • Decoherence in position why so? In the end, we are made of atoms, dilation — one of the striking predictions of system is not too big and is well isolated3,4, (B. Lamine et al., PRL 96, 050405 - 2006) which are quantum. But their most amazing general relativity. Here is how it goes. otherwise it only occurs on extremely short time scales5. [Au: ok?] For larger systems, Beamsplitter like humans, any quantum feature is rapidly • Decoherence in energy Mirror lost in the environment we live in. Hence no (M.P. Blencowe, PRL 111, 021302 - 2013) one will see us taking a quantum jump. However, there is always the possibility to clean the environment better and better, to reduce, and ideally fully remove, its è Toll for gravitational wave detection (since infuence. Tis is a technological problem, a very difcult one, that will keep physicists quantum coherences are fragile) Detector busy for a long time. Meanwhile, we can ask the question: can we eventually reach an almost perfectly clean environment, Beamsplitter where even large massive objects are free Mirror to behave quantum mechanically (if they C. What is the difference between decoherence really do so)? For example, we can think of removing all particles foating around with from gravitons and decoherence from a classical a powerful ultra-vacuum pump. We can imagine shielding the object from all sorts of stochastic gravitational background? è Toll for radiations. We can even succeed in cooling Earth everything down with the best available refrigerator. We can imagine doing many graviton detection (speculation) such amazing things. Still, something will remain: the Earth’s gravitational feld. Suppose that we create a superposition of two diferent spatial locations, separated by a distance Δx. Ten each term of the superposition feels two slightly diferent gravitational potentials: V(x) = mgx, where x is the vertical position, m is the total mass Figure 1 | Decoherence triggered by the Earth’s gravitational field. [Au: ok? caption must begin and g is the acceleration due to the Earth’s with a brief introduction sentence] A quantum system — even if isolated from the surrounding gravity. [Au: ok?] Now, and this is the environment — will decohere due to the presence of the Earth’s gravitational field because its internal crucial point of the work by Pikovski et al.1, degrees of freedom vibrate diferently depending on their position with respect to the field (clocks run the internal state of the system, in each of slower closer to massive objects, according to the general theory of relativity). When the system is in the two terms of the superposition, will a superposition of two diferent locations, such as traveling along the two arms of an interferometer, as evolve diferently. Tis is because, according shown here, its internal structure becomes entangled with the position of its centre of mass, which then to the general theory of relativity, clocks decoheres. [Au: ok?] run slower closer to a massive object, and NATURE PHYSICS | VOL 11 | AUGUST 2015 | www.nature.com/naturephysics 1 (Mass-proportional) CSL model P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2277 (1989). G.C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle and A. Rimini, Phys. Rev. A 42, 78 (1990) d i pγ = H + d3x (M(x) M(x) ) dW (x) dt| ti − m h it t ~ 0 Z γ d3xd3yG(x y)(M(x) M(x) )(M(y) M(y) ) −2m2 − h it h it | ti 0 ZZ 1 2 2 M(x)=ma†(x)a(x) G(x)= 3/2 exp[ (x) /4rC ] (4⇡rC ) − The operators are function of the space coordinate. The collapse occurs in space. Two parameters γ = collapse strength rC = localization resolution 2 3/2 λ = γ/(4⇡rC ) = collapse rate REVIEW: A. Bassi and G.C. Ghirardi, Phys. Rept. 379, 257 (2003) A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T.P. Singh and H. Ulbricht, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471 (2013) The overall picture Stable. λ too small Hilbert space Microscopic Stable. Already localized (d << rC) systems Macroscopic objects Unstable! Nλ large and d >> rC Stable. No cat-like superposition BECs, SQUIDs, superfluids … Macro superpositions Collapse and gravity It is an attempt to answer the question: why should the wave function collapse? Fundamental properties of the collapse & the possible role of gravity • It occurs in space • It scales with the mass/size of the system The obvious way to describe it mathematically, is to couple the noise field to the mass density (the stress-energy tensor, in a relativistic framework). Gravity naturally provides such a coupling. Moreover The possibility is open for gravity not to be quantum, thus possibly providing the nonstandard (anti-hermitian, nonlinear) coupling necessary for the collapse. REVIEW ARTICLE: A. Bassi, A. Grossardt and H. Ulbricht, “Gravitational Decoherence”, Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 193002 (2017). ArXiv1706.05677 The Diosi – Penrose model L. Diosi, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1165 (1989) It is like the CSL model, the only difference being in the correlation function of the noise, which is G 1 G(x)= Gravity. And no other free parameter (almost…) ~ x | | Remarks: • Model not derived from basic principles, but assumed phenomenologically • There is no justification as to why gravity should be responsible for the collapse • It is not clear with the correlation function should be Newtonian • If there is truth in the model, then quantum gravity as we know it is wrong Diosi – Penrose model L. Diosi, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1165 (1989) It leads to the collapse of the wave function. To measure how strong it is one can consider the (single-particle) master equation. It is of the Lindblad type, and implies t/⌧(x,x0) ⇢(x, x0,t)=e− ⇢(x, x0, 0) ~ 3 3 M(r)M(r0) ⌧(x, x0)= U(x)= G d rd r0 U(x x ) U(0) − x + r r − 0 − Z | − 0| Penrose’s idea It diverges for point-like particles (Quantum) gravity does not tolerate One needs a regularizing cut off quantum superpositions 564 Found Phys (2014) 44:557–575 Diosi – Penrose model R. Penrose, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28, 581 - 1996 We have to consider carefully what a ‘stationary state’ means in a context such as this. In a stationary spacetime, we have a well-defined concept of ‘stationary’ for a quantum state in that background, because there is a Killing vector T in the spacetime that generates the time-translations. Regarding T as a differential operator (the ‘∂/∂t’ for the spacetime), we simply ask for the quantum states that are eigenstates of T, and these will be the stationary states, i.e. states with well-defined energy values. [...] However, for the superposed state we are considering here we have a serious problem.
Recommended publications
  • The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B

    The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B

    The Statistical Interpretation of Entangled States B. C. Sanctuary Department of Chemistry, McGill University 801 Sherbrooke Street W Montreal, PQ, H3A 2K6, Canada Abstract Entangled EPR spin pairs can be treated using the statistical ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. As such the singlet state results from an ensemble of spin pairs each with an arbitrary axis of quantization. This axis acts as a quantum mechanical hidden variable. If the spins lose coherence they disentangle into a mixed state. Whether or not the EPR spin pairs retain entanglement or disentangle, however, the statistical ensemble interpretation resolves the EPR paradox and gives a mechanism for quantum “teleportation” without the need for instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Keywords: Statistical ensemble, entanglement, disentanglement, quantum correlations, EPR paradox, Bell’s inequalities, quantum non-locality and locality, coincidence detection 1. Introduction The fundamental questions of quantum mechanics (QM) are rooted in the philosophical interpretation of the wave function1. At the time these were first debated, covering the fifty or so years following the formulation of QM, the arguments were based primarily on gedanken experiments2. Today the situation has changed with numerous experiments now possible that can guide us in our search for the true nature of the microscopic world, and how The Infamous Boundary3 to the macroscopic world is breached. The current view is based upon pivotal experiments, performed by Aspect4 showing that quantum mechanics is correct and Bell’s inequalities5 are violated. From this the non-local nature of QM became firmly entrenched in physics leading to other experiments, notably those demonstrating that non-locally is fundamental to quantum “teleportation”.
  • Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit

    Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit

    Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit Sasu Tuohino B. Sc. Thesis Department of Physical Sciences Theoretical Physics University of Oulu 2017 Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Classical network theory4 2.1 From electromagnetic fields to circuit elements.........4 2.2 Generalized flux and charge....................6 2.3 Node variables as degrees of freedom...............7 3 Hamiltonians for electric circuits8 3.1 LC Circuit and DC voltage source................8 3.2 Cooper-Pair Box.......................... 10 3.2.1 Josephson junction.................... 10 3.2.2 Dynamics of the Cooper-pair box............. 11 3.3 Transmon qubit.......................... 12 3.3.1 Cavity resonator...................... 12 3.3.2 Shunt capacitance CB .................. 12 3.3.3 Transmon Lagrangian................... 13 3.3.4 Matrix notation in the Legendre transformation..... 14 3.3.5 Hamiltonian of transmon................. 15 4 Classical dynamics of transmon qubit 16 4.1 Equations of motion for transmon................ 16 4.1.1 Relations with voltages.................. 17 4.1.2 Shunt resistances..................... 17 4.1.3 Linearized Josephson inductance............. 18 4.1.4 Relation with currents................... 18 4.2 Control and read-out signals................... 18 4.2.1 Transmission line model.................. 18 4.2.2 Equations of motion for coupled transmission line.... 20 4.3 Quantum notation......................... 22 5 Numerical solutions for equations of motion 23 5.1 Design parameters of the transmon................ 23 5.2 Resonance shift at nonlinear regime............... 24 6 Conclusions 27 1 Abstract The focus of this thesis is on classical dynamics of a transmon qubit. First we introduce the basic concepts of the classical circuit analysis and use this knowledge to derive the Lagrangians and Hamiltonians of an LC circuit, a Cooper-pair box, and ultimately we derive Hamiltonian for a transmon qubit.
  • Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics

    Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics

    Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics Emma Wikberg Project work, 4p Department of Physics Stockholm University 23rd March 2006 Abstract The method of Path Integrals (PI’s) was developed by Richard Feynman in the 1940’s. It offers an alternate way to look at quantum mechanics (QM), which is equivalent to the Schrödinger formulation. As will be seen in this project work, many "elementary" problems are much more difficult to solve using path integrals than ordinary quantum mechanics. The benefits of path integrals tend to appear more clearly while using quantum field theory (QFT) and perturbation theory. However, one big advantage of Feynman’s formulation is a more intuitive way to interpret the basic equations than in ordinary quantum mechanics. Here we give a basic introduction to the path integral formulation, start- ing from the well known quantum mechanics as formulated by Schrödinger. We show that the two formulations are equivalent and discuss the quantum mechanical interpretations of the theory, as well as the classical limit. We also perform some explicit calculations by solving the free particle and the harmonic oscillator problems using path integrals. The energy eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator is found by exploiting the connection between path integrals, statistical mechanics and imaginary time. Contents 1 Introduction and Outline 2 1.1 Introduction . 2 1.2 Outline . 2 2 Path Integrals from ordinary Quantum Mechanics 4 2.1 The Schrödinger equation and time evolution . 4 2.2 The propagator . 6 3 Equivalence to the Schrödinger Equation 8 3.1 From the Schrödinger equation to PI’s . 8 3.2 From PI’s to the Schrödinger equation .
  • SIMULATED INTERPRETATION of QUANTUM MECHANICS Miroslav Súkeník & Jozef Šima

    SIMULATED INTERPRETATION of QUANTUM MECHANICS Miroslav Súkeník & Jozef Šima

    SIMULATED INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS Miroslav Súkeník & Jozef Šima Slovak University of Technology, Radlinského 9, 812 37 Bratislava, Slovakia Abstract: The paper deals with simulated interpretation of quantum mechanics. This interpretation is based on possibilities of computer simulation of our Universe. 1: INTRODUCTION Quantum theory and theory of relativity are two fundamental theories elaborated in the 20th century. In spite of the stunning precision of many predictions of quantum mechanics, its interpretation remains still unclear. This ambiguity has not only serious physical but mainly philosophical consequences. The commonest interpretations include the Copenhagen probability interpretation [1], many-words interpretation [2], and de Broglie-Bohm interpretation (theory of pilot wave) [3]. The last mentioned theory takes place in a single space-time, is non - local, and is deterministic. Moreover, Born’s ensemble and Watanabe’s time-symmetric theory being an analogy of Wheeler – Feynman theory should be mentioned. The time-symmetric interpretation was later, in the 60s re- elaborated by Aharonov and it became in the 80s the starting point for so called transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. More modern interpretations cover a spontaneous collapse of wave function (here, a new non-linear component, causing this collapse is added to Schrödinger equation), decoherence interpretation (wave function is reduced due to an interaction of a quantum- mechanical system with its surroundings) and relational interpretation [4] elaborated by C. Rovelli in 1996. This interpretation treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, i.e. the state is the relation between the observer and the system. Relational interpretation is able to solve the EPR paradox.
  • 1 Does Consciousness Really Collapse the Wave Function?

    1 Does Consciousness Really Collapse the Wave Function?

    Does consciousness really collapse the wave function?: A possible objective biophysical resolution of the measurement problem Fred H. Thaheld* 99 Cable Circle #20 Folsom, Calif. 95630 USA Abstract An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement problem. This reveals that an error may have been made by them in the area of biology and its interface with quantum mechanics when they called for the reduction of any superposition states in the brain through the mind or consciousness. Many years later Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position, expanded upon by Shimony, which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue. The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or states is always objectively changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons, thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind or consciousness. An experiment to be conducted in the near future may enable us to simultaneously resolve the measurement problem and also determine if the linear nature of quantum mechanics is violated by the perceptual process. Keywords: Consciousness; Euglena; Linear; Measurement problem; Nonlinear; Objective; Retina; Rhodopsin molecule; Subjective; Wave function collapse. * e-mail address: [email protected] 1 1.
  • Relativistic Quantum Mechanics 1

    Relativistic Quantum Mechanics 1

    Relativistic Quantum Mechanics 1 The aim of this chapter is to introduce a relativistic formalism which can be used to describe particles and their interactions. The emphasis 1.1 SpecialRelativity 1 is given to those elements of the formalism which can be carried on 1.2 One-particle states 7 to Relativistic Quantum Fields (RQF), which underpins the theoretical 1.3 The Klein–Gordon equation 9 framework of high energy particle physics. We begin with a brief summary of special relativity, concentrating on 1.4 The Diracequation 14 4-vectors and spinors. One-particle states and their Lorentz transforma- 1.5 Gaugesymmetry 30 tions follow, leading to the Klein–Gordon and the Dirac equations for Chaptersummary 36 probability amplitudes; i.e. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM). Readers who want to get to RQM quickly, without studying its foun- dation in special relativity can skip the first sections and start reading from the section 1.3. Intrinsic problems of RQM are discussed and a region of applicability of RQM is defined. Free particle wave functions are constructed and particle interactions are described using their probability currents. A gauge symmetry is introduced to derive a particle interaction with a classical gauge field. 1.1 Special Relativity Einstein’s special relativity is a necessary and fundamental part of any Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955 formalism of particle physics. We begin with its brief summary. For a full account, refer to specialized books, for example (1) or (2). The- ory oriented students with good mathematical background might want to consult books on groups and their representations, for example (3), followed by introductory books on RQM/RQF, for example (4).
  • Realism About the Wave Function

    Realism About the Wave Function

    Realism about the Wave Function Eddy Keming Chen* Forthcoming in Philosophy Compass Penultimate version of June 12, 2019 Abstract A century after the discovery of quantum mechanics, the meaning of quan- tum mechanics still remains elusive. This is largely due to the puzzling nature of the wave function, the central object in quantum mechanics. If we are real- ists about quantum mechanics, how should we understand the wave function? What does it represent? What is its physical meaning? Answering these ques- tions would improve our understanding of what it means to be a realist about quantum mechanics. In this survey article, I review and compare several realist interpretations of the wave function. They fall into three categories: ontological interpretations, nomological interpretations, and the sui generis interpretation. For simplicity, I will focus on non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Keywords: quantum mechanics, wave function, quantum state of the universe, sci- entific realism, measurement problem, configuration space realism, Hilbert space realism, multi-field, spacetime state realism, laws of nature Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Background 3 2.1 The Wave Function . .3 2.2 The Quantum Measurement Problem . .6 3 Ontological Interpretations 8 3.1 A Field on a High-Dimensional Space . .8 3.2 A Multi-field on Physical Space . 10 3.3 Properties of Physical Systems . 11 3.4 A Vector in Hilbert Space . 12 *Department of Philosophy MC 0119, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92093-0119. Website: www.eddykemingchen.net. Email: [email protected] 1 4 Nomological Interpretations 13 4.1 Strong Nomological Interpretations . 13 4.2 Weak Nomological Interpretations .
  • Quantum Mechanics in 1-D Potentials

    Quantum Mechanics in 1-D Potentials

    MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 6.007 { Electromagnetic Energy: From Motors to Lasers Spring 2011 Tutorial 10: Quantum Mechanics in 1-D Potentials Quantum mechanical model of the universe, allows us describe atomic scale behavior with great accuracy|but in a way much divorced from our perception of everyday reality. Are photons, electrons, atoms best described as particles or waves? Simultaneous wave-particle description might be the most accurate interpretation, which leads us to develop a mathe- matical abstraction. 1 Rules for 1-D Quantum Mechanics Our mathematical abstraction of choice is the wave function, sometimes denoted as , and it allows us to predict the statistical outcomes of experiments (i.e., the outcomes of our measurements) according to a few rules 1. At any given time, the state of a physical system is represented by a wave function (x), which|for our purposes|is a complex, scalar function dependent on position. The quantity ρ (x) = ∗ (x) (x) is a probability density function. Furthermore, is complete, and tells us everything there is to know about the particle. 2. Every measurable attribute of a physical system is represented by an operator that acts on the wave function. In 6.007, we're largely interested in position (x^) and momentum (p^) which have operator representations in the x-dimension @ x^ ! x p^ ! ~ : (1) i @x Outcomes of measurements are described by the expectation values of the operator Z Z @ hx^i = dx ∗x hp^i = dx ∗ ~ : (2) i @x In general, any dynamical variable Q can be expressed as a function of x and p, and we can find the expectation value of Z h @ hQ (x; p)i = dx ∗Q x; : (3) i @x 3.
  • Collapse Theories

    Collapse Theories

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilSci Archive Collapse Theories Peter J. Lewis The collapse postulate in quantum mechanics is problematic. In standard presentations of the theory, the state of a system prior to a measurement is a sum of terms, with one term representing each possible outcome of the measurement. According to the collapse postulate, a measurement precipitates a discontinuous jump to one of these terms; the others disappear. The reason this is problematic is that there are good reasons to think that measurement per se cannot initiate a new kind of physical process. This is the measurement problem, discussed in section 1 below. The problem here lies not with collapse, but with the appeal to measurement. That is, a theory that could underwrite the collapse process just described without ineliminable reference to measurement would constitute a solution to the measurement problem. This is the strategy pursued by dynamical (or spontaneous) collapse theories, which differ from standard presentations in that they replace the measurement-based collapse postulate with a dynamical mechanism formulated in terms of universal physical laws. Various dynamical collapse theories of quantum mechanics have been proposed; they are discussed in section 2. But dynamical collapse theories face a number of challenges. First, they make different empirical predictions from standard quantum mechanics, and hence are potentially empirically refutable. Of course, testability is a virtue, but since we have no empirical reason to think that systems ever undergo collapse, dynamical collapse theories are inherently empirically risky. Second, there are difficulties reconciling the dynamical collapse mechanism with special relativity.
  • Stochastic Quantum Potential Noise and Quantum Measurement

    Stochastic Quantum Potential Noise and Quantum Measurement

    Chapter 7 Stochastic Quantum Potential Noise and Quantum Measurement Wei Wen Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74253 Abstract Quantum measurement is the greatest problem in quantum theory. In fact, different views for the quantum measurement cause different schools of thought in quantum theory. The quandaries of quantum measurement are mainly concentrated in “stochastic measurement space”, “instantaneous measurement process” and “basis-preferred measurement space.” These quandaries are incompatible with classical physical laws and discussed many years but still unsolved. In this chapter, we introduce a new theory that provided a new scope to interpret the quantum measurement. This theory tells us the quandaries of quantum mea- surement are due to the nonlocal correlation and stochastic quantum potential noise. The quantum collapse had been completed by the noised world before we looked, and the moon is here independent of our observations. Keywords: quantum measurement, quantum collapse, quantum potential noise, Feynman path integral 1. Introduction Schrödinger cat was born from the thought experiment of Schrödinger in 1935. However, after more than 80 years, we still do not know whether it is dead or alive in its sealed box. According to the modern quantum mechanics, based on Copenhagen interpretation, the fate of this cat is entangled with the Geiger counter monitor in its box, and the cat is in a “mixed state”—both dead and alive—if we do not open the box to look at it. It is a miserable and mystical cat, which seems its fate depends on our look.
  • Fourier Transformations & Understanding Uncertainty

    Fourier Transformations & Understanding Uncertainty

    Fourier Transformations & Understanding Uncertainty Uncertainty Relation: Fourier Analysis of Wave Packets Group 1: Brian Allgeier, Chris Browder, Brian Kim (7 December 2015) Introduction: In Quantum Mechanics, wave functions offer statistical information about possible results, not the exact outcome of an experiment. Two wave functions of interest are the position wave function and the momentum wave function; these wave functions represent the components of a state vector in the position basis and the momentum basis, respectively. These two can be related through the Fourier Transform and the Inverse Fourier Transform. This demonstration application will allow the users to define their own momentum wave function and use the inverse Fourier transformation to find the position wave function. If the Fourier transform were to be used on the resulting wave function, the result would then be the original momentum wave function. Both wave functions visually show the wave packets in momentum and position space. The momentum wave packet is a Gaussian while the corresponding position wave packet is a Gaussian envelope which contains an internal oscillatory wave. The two wave packets are related by the uncertainty principle, which states that the more defined (i.e. more localized) the wave function is in one basis, the less defined the corresponding wave function will be in the other basis. The application will also create an interactive 3-dimensional model that relates the two wave functions through the inverse Fourier transformation, or more specifically, by visually decomposing a Gaussian wave packet (in momentum space) into a specified number of components waves (in position space). Using this application will give the user a stronger knowledge of the relationship between the Fourier transform, inverse Fourier transform, and the relationship between wave packets in momentum space and position space as determined by the Uncertainty Principle.
  • Informal Introduction to QM: Free Particle

    Informal Introduction to QM: Free Particle

    Chapter 2 Informal Introduction to QM: Free Particle Remember that in case of light, the probability of nding a photon at a location is given by the square of the square of electric eld at that point. And if there are no sources present in the region, the components of the electric eld are governed by the wave equation (1D case only) ∂2u 1 ∂2u − =0 (2.1) ∂x2 c2 ∂t2 Note the features of the solutions of this dierential equation: 1. The simplest solutions are harmonic, that is u ∼ exp [i (kx − ωt)] where ω = c |k|. This function represents the probability amplitude of photons with energy ω and momentum k. 2. Superposition principle holds, that is if u1 = exp [i (k1x − ω1t)] and u2 = exp [i (k2x − ω2t)] are two solutions of equation 2.1 then c1u1 + c2u2 is also a solution of the equation 2.1. 3. A general solution of the equation 2.1 is given by ˆ ∞ u = A(k) exp [i (kx − ωt)] dk. −∞ Now, by analogy, the rules for matter particles may be found. The functions representing matter waves will be called wave functions. £ First, the wave function ψ(x, t)=A exp [i(px − Et)/] 8 represents a particle with momentum p and energy E = p2/2m. Then, the probability density function P (x, t) for nding the particle at x at time t is given by P (x, t)=|ψ(x, t)|2 = |A|2 . Note that the probability distribution function is independent of both x and t. £ Assume that superposition of the waves hold.