# Tag Info

1

In section 1 he's talking about the ultraviolet catastrophe. Re what you said about section 2, yes. The ultraviolet catastrophe "is the error at short wavelengths in the Rayleigh–Jeans law (depicted as 'classical theory' in the graph) for the energy emitted by an ideal black-body". Public domain image by Darth Kule, see Wikipedia

0

It is a bit like the standing wave, but the "particle" (electron, in your example) would correspond to an excitation of the string, not the string itself. The string itself would represent the "wave function" of the electron. But it's a string with a very strange property: it is either vibrating with a particular amplitude, or it is not vibrating at all. ...

2

It is true that the wave function $\psi(x)$ is already not an observable, hence the statement about the group velocity is not needed to "falsify" the possible claims for $\psi(x)$ to be physical. However, given a state $|\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$ there might still be a temptation to identify its wave function with a possible particle behaviour in terms of ...

0

never try to apply both particle and wave nature of the photons at once. because in dual nature, photons 'sometimes' show wave nature (expecially in travelling ie. propogation) , and other times particle nature(when interacting with other particles). not both 'simultaneously'. and in your question, due to wave nature ,diffraction is observed because,of ...

1

The edge provides a boundary condition that the EM field must satisfy. The total EM field is "aware" of the boundary. "Photons", being quantized excitations of the EM field, are created (emitted) and destroyed (hit a screen) only where the EM field exists. If you are trying to think of photons as particles, forget it. You'll end up with all sorts of ...

0

This graphic helps understanding which properties are typical for waves and which for particles: The source page and its internal links are well worth visiting too.

0

From the theory of light waves we know that for similiar experiment an interference pattern occurs when light quanta interacts with the system. Now with electrons there is an unique "wave" for that particular experiment that guides those electrons that hit the screen. Initially electrons must have equal speed and direction for that clear pattern to emerge. ...

3

The fact that the first image has a random distribution, shows that each electron interferes with itself and strikes a point on on the screen which would be dictated by the probability function. Yes. The interference pattern is the result of the same interference of many electrons and is a statistical property of many electrons. Sort of. Each ...

5

The fact that the first image has a random distribution, shows that each electron interferes with itself and strikes a point on on the screen which would be dictated by the probability function. What a) tells us is that a single electron was fired at two slits and was deflected to a point at an angle from a straight projections from the slits. The same ...

1

I just wanted to confirm whether I have the correct understanding. The fact that the first image has a random distribution, shows that each electron interferes with itself and strikes a point on on the screen which would be dictated by the probability function. More or less. It isn't quite random, and I'd say it's dictated by the nature of electrons ...

2

I've seen illustrations of particles being particles and then becoming waves momentarily on impact before going back to being particles. This is a misleading description of what happens at the microscopic level, the underlying level of nature, where quantum mechanics reigns. When talking of particles with dimensions smaller than nanometers ...

3

Particles do not become waves, nor waves waves become particles, nor any other thing in the between. The terminology of being a particle or a wave is, in the classical literature, addressed to the solutions of the Newton's equations and the D'Alambert equation, respectively, but nevertheless has no direct experimental meaning, even in the classical picture ...

2

If the wavelength is really small, one can neglect diffraction effects and light can be viewd as rays. Once the wavelenght becomes comparable to the the size of the object with which it is interacting (e.g. a hole in an opaque screen), diffraction effect becomes important and one needs the wave picture of light to explain diffraction phenomena. But I don't ...

Top 50 recent answers are included