Wave function locality and phase and inherent phase

The wave function y is that function which is a solution to the Schrodinger equation. It's "norm" at x is equal to the probability of finding the subject particle at x. Thus it must be inherently non local since an increase in probability at some point must be accompanied by an instantaneous decrease at some other point. It represents what we know and perhaps can know about the particle's "state". However that does not mean the particle does not have real properties.

The "collapse" of the wave function can be viewed as a measurement providing more detailed boundary and/or initial conditions to Schrodinger's equation.

The wave function includes phase information which is obliterated when y is used with it's complement to find a measurable value as in:

y*x y . 

The need for complex terms originates in the fact that must y include phase information to properly represent how the particle's state evolves in time. One might view y as a vector in a plane and the real and imaginary parts as components. The coordinate of this plane on the axis normal to the plane would represent the value of the particle's measurable. Then the magnitude of this vector or the area it sweeps relate directly to the probability density of the particle's measurable quantity.

Solutions to the time dependent Schrodinger include an e^-i(Et-px)/h term. Thus, the phase of y changes with action; with change in action equal to E delta t-p delta x, with a change in action of h equal to one full cycle.

Change in action is E delta t-p delta x. This quantity is Lorentz invariant. In its own frame, a particle's change in action is mc² delta t and it's inherent frequency of phase change is therefore mc² /h. Several questions arise.

1) Are the phases of particles key to understanding interactions between particles and other particles and fields? This certainly seems to be the case with interference a la the two slit experiments (Ref 2).

2) What is the relationship between particle phase and the phase of y?  They seem to change at the same rate.

3) What is the effect of change in potential energy on phase? Why?

Quantum of Action and the Uncertainty Principle

This is a revision to my June post (subsequently revised to match this post) about action being fundamental and how it's being quantized in integral multiples of Planck's constant, h, or integral multiples of h/2pi implies the Uncertainty Principle.

Action, S, is a fundamental quantity. Let's examine a single particle. Its action is given by E_p t_p, where the subscript p means in the frame of the particle and E_p =m_pc².

Action, S = m _pt_p c², is invariant. If an observer sees a particle moving with velocity v then they measure action as 

E_obst_obs - p_obsds = m_obsc² - m_obs v ds = m_obsc² t_obs- m_obs v vt_obs = m_obsc² t_obs- m_obs v²t_obs

but m_obs = gamma m_p and t_obs  = gamma t_p, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v² /c² ) 

Thus, m_obsc² t_obs- m_obs v²t_obs = 

1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )m _pc²1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )t_p - 1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )m _p v²1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )t_p

=[1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )]²[m _pc²t_p - m _pv²t_p ]

=[1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )]²m _pt_p [c² - v² ] multiplying by c² /c² yields

= m _pt_p c²

While invariance of action does not necessarily imply fundamental importance, it is reassuring.

Do all measurements of E require some finite time and all measurements of p require some finite distance? If so, can they be thought of as really being measurements of action? Let us assume this is true.

Energy is the time rate of change in action. A particle's intrinsic energy is m_pc². All changes in action are quantized in the quantity h/2pi, which we'll call hbar where h is Planck's Constant. Particles have a period, tau, associated with their change in action , given by tau =h/m _pc². One can establish a related quantity, tau bar, the time for a change in action of h/2pi or hbar. Tau bar = 1/omega

Discussions which follow remain essentially the same if the 

The Uncertainty Principal follows naturally from the quantization of action. If one measures the change in action over duration t_meas , one gets an energy measurement, E_meas = change in S /t_meas . 

If one performs the measurement so that it begins just after a change in S of magnitude hbar occurs and it ends exactly when the following change in S by hbar occurs, i.e. if t_meas= tau bar, one gets E_meas = E_p . However, if the duration of the measurement is less than tau bar but the measurement still encompasses the minimum change in S of hbar, then E_meas > E_p . E_meas = change in S /t_meas so that E_meas = hbar/ t_meas or E_meas t_meas= hbar , and the smaller t_meas is the greater E_meas  .

If the duration of the measurement is over several periods, tau (say N tau) the uncertainty in energy is reduced.

Assume the change in S during the measurement is N(h/2pi). To capture the N changes in S, the measurement duration could be less than or more than N tau bar by as much as tau bar less an instant. For example, t_meas could begin just before the first change in S and end just after the last change. It would record the full change in S, but would be almost one tau bar shorter than N tau bar. Then E_meas = Nhbar /[(N-1)tau bar]. However, if the measurement began just after a change in S to the intial value and ended after the final change to action of Nhbar , the duration of the measurement would be N tau bar and the energy measured would be Nhbar /(N tau bar). The uncertainty in energy for the the measurements of the same change of Nhbar in action S , would be Nhbar /{tau bar [1/(N-1)-1/(N)] } which for moderately large N comes to about hbar /(N tau hbar) . Thus, by extending the duration of the measurement by a factor of N one reduces the uncertainty in energy by the same factor

We can also explain uncertainty using the DeBroglie relationship lambda = h/p:

Just as energy is related to the quantum of action hbar ,by E = hbar/tau bar, momentum, p, is related to the quantum of action by p = hbar/lambda bar; and p lambda bar = hbar indicates that a particle of momentum p must travel a distance lambda bar to accumulate one hbar of increase in total action, S.

If you measure the particle’s action over a length r shorter than lambda bar, you may detect a change in action of hbar. Then you can conclude that the momentum may be as high as hbar/r. However, most of the accumulation of momentum times distance since the last change in total action may have occurred in the particle path before your measurement, so p could be much lower so your uncertainty in p is hbar/r. If you measure change in action over r’ = 7 lambda bar, you will measure between 6 hbar and 7 hbar change in total action, and the uncertainty becomes 1 hbar/r’ or 1/7 of hbar/r.

Here is a slightly different approach assuming the quanta of action is h not hbar yielding a similar result if you substitute hbar and taubar  appropriately:

Suppose one measures the change in total action over a time interval, t,  less than tau. Say sometime during that interval, t,  the total action changes by one h.  The only things you know are that sometime during t total action changed by h. From this you conclude that E could be as high as h/t. On the other hand if you think about it a bit you realize that your interval t could have started after a large fraction of tau had passed since the last increase in total action by h, so that most of the accumulation of energy time leading to an addition of h in total action occurred prior to your beginning your measurement. Therefore the energy could be much lower( near zero?). Thus you are uncertain about E by h/t.

Now suppose your measurement takes place over a period, t’,  several times tau, lets say  t’ = 7 tau for example. Depending on exactly when you begin your measurement vis a vis  when a period begins [ i.e. the time when the last increase in total action by h occurred prior to the measurement]  you will measure either 6 h or 7h as the change in total action. So you know the energy is between 6h/t’ and 7h/t’  but since t’ is 7 x t , you have reduced your uncertainty by a factor of 7. 

On De Broglie Wavelength and Uncertainty

DeBroglie Waves and Heisenberg's Uncertainty

An interesting take on the De Broglie wavelength. This is adapted from Ch1 Sect 5 of Quantum Mechanics of Particles and Fields by Arthur March, available from Dover Publications.

Consider a particle as an object of great or even infinite length along the x axis. Coordinates for this particles frame are x’,y’,z’,t’. Assume it oscillates say in the y direction with period tau’. Assume it is now moving in the x direction with respect to a set of coordinates K ( x,y,z, t) at velocity v. For simplicity we set t=0 when t’=0 at x=x’=0. Because the times in the particle frame and K differ, different positions, x, will see different phases of the oscillation. In particular let’s find a position, x*, in K where at time t=0 the phase is the same at x =0. This means that the time in the particle frame at this location must be tau’, i.e. a full period, ahead or behind t’=0. Let’s assume a period head i.e. t’ at x=x* and t=0 =tau’

Using the Lorentz transformation we have

t=0=gamma(tau’+vx’/c^2). [gamma =1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ].

This means that x’ corresponding to t=o and x=x*

is given by vx’/c^2 = -tau’ or x’ = -tau’ c^2/v.

From this we can, using the Lorentz transformation for x, find x*

x* = gamma (x’+vt’) = gamma (-c^2tau’/v +v tau’)

=gamma v tau’(-c^2/v^2 +1) = gamma v tau’ v (1-c^2/v^2)

taking a factor of c^2/v^2 out of the parentheses we have

= gamma tau’ c^2/v(v^2/c^2- 1) note that the term in () is –1/gamma^2

we have x* = (- c^2/v) tau’/gamma.

Since the phase at x* is the same as at x=0 ( plus 2pi) the distance between the two can be viewed as an apparent wavelength, lambda. So lambda apparent = (c^2/v) tau’/gamma. Since frequency nu = 1/tau we have lambda= (c^2/v) /nu or

lambda nu = (c^2/v) so that (c^2/v) can be thought of as the phase velocity.

Since E = gamma mc^2 = h nu

and momentum, p = gamma mv= mc^2 (v/c^2) = h nu (v/c^2)

p = h nu / (c^2 /v)= h nu/ lambda nu = h/ lambda or p = h/ lambda, the De Broglie relation.

Thus when a particle exhibits wave nature it is because the particle is intrinsically oscillating in some sense, which determines tau’, and it has motion relative to an observer, the velocity of which determines, with tau’, the observed wavelength. Note that this also makes the De Broglie wavelength something of an artifact of special relativity, i.e. the fact that the clocks in the two frames are not synchronized.

E =h nu or E tau = h tau =1/nu which is more intuitive. Tau is simply the characteristic time [or period] it takes for a particle of energy E to accumulate one h worth of increase in total action. 

Similarly, De Borglie's relation, p lambda = h indicates that a particle of momentum p must travel a distance lambda to accumulate one h of increase in total action.

If total action is truly quantized, then there is no measurable change until total action changes by h.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal can be explained as follows: Suppose one measures the change in total action over a time interval, t,  less than tau. Say sometime during that interval, t,  the total action changes by one h.  The only things you know are that sometime during t total action changed by h. From this you conclude that E could be as high as h/t. On the other hand if you think about it a bit you realize that your interval t could have started after a large fraction of tau had passed since the last increase in total action by h, so that most of the accumulation of energy time leading to an addition of h in total action occurred prior to your beginning your measurement. Therefore the energy could be much lower( near zero?). Thus you are uncertain about E by h/t.

Now suppose your measurement takes place over a period, t’,  several times tau, lets say  t’ = 7 tau for example. Depending on exactly when you begin your measurement vis a vis  when a period begins [ i.e. the time when the last increase in total action by h occurred prior to the measurement]  you will measure either 6 h or 7h as the change in total action. So you know the energy is between 6h/t’ and 7h/t’  but since t’ is 7 x t , you have reduced your uncertainty by a factor of 7. 

Similarly, for momentum if you measure the particle’s total action over a length , r, shorter than lambda , you may detect a change in total action of h. Then you can conclude that the momentum may be as high as h/r. However, most of the accumulation of momentum times distance since the last change in total action may have occurred in the particle path before your measurement, so p could be much lower (near zero?) so your uncertainty in p is h/r. If you measure over r’ = 7 lambda  you will measure between 6h and 7h change in total action, and the uncertainty becomes h/r’ or 1/7 of h/r.

Action ( as used in physics) and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal

Action, S, is a fundamental quantity. Let's examine a single particle. Its action is given by E_p t_p, where the subscript p means in the frame of the particle and E_p =m_pc².

Action, S = m _pt_p c², is invariant. If an observer sees a particle moving with velocity v then they measure action as 

E_obst_obs - p_obsds = m_obsc² - m_obs v ds = m_obsc² t_obs- m_obs v vt_obs = m_obsc² t_obs- m_obs v²t_obs

but m_obs = gamma m_p and t_obs  = gamma t_p, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v² /c² ) 

Thus, m_obsc² t_obs- m_obs v²t_obs = 

1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )m _pc²1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )t_p - 1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )m _p v²1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )t_p

=[1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )]²[m _pc²t_p - m _pv²t_p ]

=[1/sqrt(1-v² /c² )]²m _pt_p [c² - v² ] multiplying by c² /c² yields

= m _pt_p c²

While invariance of action does not necessarily imply fundamental importance, it is reassuring.

Do all measurements of E require some finite time and all measurements of p require some finite distance? If so, can they be thought of as really being measurements of action? Let us assume this is true.

Energy is the time rate of change in action. A particle's intrinsic energy is m_pc². All changes in action are quantized in the quantity h/2pi, which we'll call hbar where h is Planck's Constant. Particles have a period, tau, associated with their change in action , given by tau =h/m _pc². One can establish a related quantity, tau bar, the time for a change in action of h/2pi or hbar. Tau bar = 1/omega

Discussions which follow remain essentially the same if the 

The Uncertainty Principal follows naturally from the quantization of action. If one measures the change in action over duration t_meas , one gets an energy measurement, E_meas = change in S /t_meas . 

If one performs the measurement so that it begins just after a change in S of magnitude hbar occurs and it ends exactly when the following change in S by hbar occurs, i.e. if t_meas= tau bar, one gets E_meas = E_p . However, if the duration of the measurement is less than tau bar but the measurement still encompasses the minimum change in S of hbar, then E_meas > E_p . E_meas = change in S /t_meas so that E_meas = hbar/ t_meas or E_meas t_meas= hbar , and the smaller t_meas is the greater E_meas  .

If the duration of the measurement is over several periods, tau (say N tau) the uncertainty in energy is reduced.

Assume the change in S during the measurement is N(h/2pi). To capture the N changes in S, the measurement duration could be less than or more than N tau bar by as much as tau bar less an instant. For example, t_meas could begin just before the first change in S and end just after the last change. It would record the full change in S, but would be almost one tau bar shorter than N tau bar. Then E_meas = Nhbar /[(N-1)tau bar]. However, if the measurement began just after a change in S to the intial value and ended after the final change to action of Nhbar , the duration of the measurement would be N tau bar and the energy measured would be Nhbar /(N tau bar). The uncertainty in energy for the the measurements of the same change of Nhbar in action S , would be Nhbar /{tau bar [1/(N-1)-1/(N)] } which for moderately large N comes to about hbar /(N tau hbar) . Thus, by extending the duration of the measurement by a factor of N one reduces the uncertainty in energy by the same factor

We can also explain uncertainty using the DeBroglie relationship lambda = h/p:

Just as energy is related to the quantum of action hbar ,by E = hbar/tau bar, momentum, p, is related to the quantum of action by p = hbar/lambda bar; and p lambda bar = hbar indicates that a particle of momentum p must travel a distance lambda bar to accumulate one hbar of increase in total action, S.

If you measure the particle’s action over a length r shorter than lambda bar, you may detect a change in action of hbar. Then you can conclude that the momentum may be as high as hbar/r. However, most of the accumulation of momentum times distance since the last change in total action may have occurred in the particle path before your measurement, so p could be much lower so your uncertainty in p is hbar/r. If you measure change in action over r’ = 7 lambda bar, you will measure between 6 hbar and 7 hbar change in total action, and the uncertainty becomes 1 hbar/r’ or 1/7 of hbar/r.

I am going to start posting here occasionally about physics and perhaps some  philosophical  items, and selected rants.

My latest reading on the foundations of quantum mechanics  discusses the rift between the positivists and the realists.  I think the basic issue is whether the variables that describe the location, momentum ,and energy of a particle or system are not defined until a measurement is made or whether they have "real" values independent of a measurement.  Non locality, the fact that an action at one place can influence a particle at a distance instantly, has been established by several experiments.  What may be open to question is whether the non locality affects the wave function for a particle or the particle itself.  More later

Real Education Reform

When are we going to adjust our educational system to produce thinking adults rather than trying to stuff students heads with things they'll never use. I am currently tutoring a young lady in calculus three, which seems to be more semi advanced linear algebra than calculus.
She has to learn how to find equations for lines and curves, how to find norms for five dimensional surfaces and tangent planes, equations for intersecting planes, and much more, ...and this is just 3 weeks into the course. I spent 40 years as an engineer and applied physicist and never needed to find equations of plane intersections or tangents to level surfaces.

I have no objection to asking students to gain understanding of complex topics, but instead of focusing on underlying concepts the course(s) devolve into learning procedures and tricks ( like looking for all the ways one can arrange trig functions to come up with sin square plus cos square terms) to get answers to examples that will never be encountered outside the course.

Learning fewer procedures and doing fewer examples, but gaining insight into the true meaning of gradients and why level surfaces are important would be so much more rewarding and stimulating of intellectual growth.

Please Tell Them to be Checked Regularly

I don't often post about very personal things but in this case I think it is important that this information be disseminated. Three of my sisters had breast cancer, first diagnosed between fifteen and twenty years ago. One sister has been cancer free for many years. Neither of the other two was monitored frequently enough and one developed widely metastasized cancer from which she died this past month and the other is being treated for ovarian cancer, which was discovered fortuitously. If you know someone who has had breast cancer urge them to be monitored frequently. Also urge them to be tested for the brca genes, as positive results may guide their oncologists to suggest additional treatment options.

Statistics Help

In particle physics, sought after events that confirm many aspects of the theory of elementary particles can be relatively rare.  Determining if signals recorded in detectors are from these events, rather than minor blips in the plethora of background events,  requires the application of sophisticated statistical analysis.  If anyone out there can recommend a good primer in statistical methods that covers Monte Carlo methods, Markov chains, and Bayesian statistics, please let me know.

Small project; refinishing block front dresser.

Project news... not actual woodworking this time, just refinishing. Several weeks ago I picked up a piece of Kindel vintage furniture, from somewhere between the late early and late 40's I guess. It looked forlorn and beat up standing outside a gas station/antique store when I cycled by it, but I recognized the quality and the name Kindel, Grand rapids confirmed my estimate. So I paid the $75 asking price and drove down later to pick it up. Got in the basement and went to work on it. 

Removed blotchy dark coating  and factory lacquer finish. Polished the brasses and applied several coats of new lacquer to the wood. The piece had been dusted or polished with silicon bearing cleaner, waxes, or polishes. This prevents the new finish from adhering so I had to use a special additive in the new lacquer. It helped but the results are still not as good as they would have been otherwise. So DO NOT USE anything on your furniture or other surface that eventually may be refinished unless IT SAYS SILICON FREE. [ i.e it's guilty until proven innocent]

The dresser  went from before to after pretty well, I think. Judge for yourself. It now sits in the alcove of our bedroom.

Of Men (and Women) and Molecules

Here's a thought about the parallels between physics and people. Kinetic molecular theory is used to model the behavior of large assemblies of gas molecules. It correctly describes the average energy, how the assembly will respond to energy inputs, being compressed, allowed to expand, etc. It can tell how many molecules will have a given energy. It cannot tell you much about the location, speed, or direction of an individual. Seems similar to knowing about populations not telling you much about individual people. I like to consider people as individuals rather than as members of populations.

Real Magic

It is easy to understand the appeal of fantasy literature. Magical words, hidden kingdoms, supernatural creatures, are interesting and exciting. As a fan of Harry Potter, and much more so, of Middle Earth, I have no difficulty in seeing why so many people find fantasy worlds so attractive,....but....

I took a walk in the woods today and I came upon a stretch of forest, not magic,  but magical. Trees twenty times a tall man’s height, each tree a forest of soaring limbs in it’s own right, crowned by a sea of leaves, translucent green, bright yellow, shining gold, and brilliant scarlet, all against a perfect blue sky, waving wildly, yet gracefully in the full strength of the wind from which they sheltered the forest floor.

The real world is magic enough.  All you need do is take the time to see it. Go..... go and find the magic.

Scouts

Boy scouts if done right, is one of the best things that can happen to a boy between 11 and 18.

Here's are pictures from a recent outing to a local cave.

On DeBroglie Wave length

An interesting take on the De Broglie wavelength. This is adapted from Ch1 Sect 5 of Quantum Mechanics of Particles and Fields by Arthur March, available from Dover Publications.

Consider a particle as an object of great or even infinite length along the x axis. Coordinates for this particles frame are x’,y’,z’,t’. Assume it oscillates say in the y direction with period tau’. Assume it is now moving in the x direction with respect to a set of coordinates K ( x,y,z, t) at velocity v. For simplicity we set t=0 when t’=0 at x=x’=0. Because the times in the particle frame and K differ, different positions, x, will see different phases of the oscillation. In particular let’s find a position, x*, in K where at time t=0 the phase is the same at x =0. This means that the time in the particle frame at this location must be tau’, i.e. a full period, ahead or behind t’=0. Let’s assume a period head i.e. t’ at x=x* and t=0 =tau’

Using the Lorentz transformation we have

t=0=gamma(tau’+vx’/c^2).                             [gamma =1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ].

This means that x’ corresponding to t=o and x=x*

is given by vx’/c^2 = -tau’  or x’ = -tau’ c^2/v.

From this we can, using the Lorentz transformation for x,  find x*

x* = gamma (x’+vt’) = gamma (-c^2tau’/v +v tau’)

=gamma v tau’(-c^2/v^2 +1)  = gamma v tau’   v (1-c^2/v^2)

taking a factor of c^2/v^2 out of the parentheses we have

= gamma tau’  c^2/v(v^2/c^2- 1)     note that the term in () is   –1/gamma^2

we have x* = (- c^2/v) tau’/gamma.

Since the phase at x* is the same as at x=0 the distance between the two can be viewed as an apparent wavelength, lambda.  So lambda apparent = (c^2/v)  tau’/gamma. Since frequency nu = 1/tau we have  lambda= (c^2/v) /nu or

lambda nu = (c^2/v)  so that (c^2/v)  can be thought of as the phase velocity.

Since E = gamma mc^2 = h nu

and  momentum, p = gamma mv= mc^2  (v/c^2) =  h nu (v/c^2)

p = h nu / (c^2 /v)= h nu/ lambda nu = h/ lambda or p = h/ lambda,  the De Broglie relation.

Thus when a particle exhibits wave nature it is because the particle is intrinsically oscillating in some sense,   which determines tau’, and it has motion relative to an observer the velocity of which determines, with tau’, the observed wavelength. Note that this also makes the De Broglie wavelength something of an artifact of special relativity, i.e. the fact that the clocks in the two frames are not synchronized.

Summer Report 4 Fruit Trees

A dry May combined with sunny summer with more than adequate rain plus some other factor have led to a banner year for fruit trees around here. Our pear tree and our apple trees, which receive essentially no care from us, have produced abundant yields this summer.