Timeline for No well-defined frequency for a wave packet?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 4:22 | comment | added | FraSchelle | My bad, you're right. I confound time symmetry breaking and unitarity. Nevertheless, the lifetime of an atom is explained via the coupling to an infinite reservoir modes. The simplest picture is (as I believe) to first discuss the isolated atoms, for which the quantisation of the energy level is a postulate. This perfectly quantised level gets broader by statistical effects. You just described the second part. I'm feeling your answer unlikely to be understood by someone stuck at the Broglie's relationship. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 4:06 | history | edited | user4552 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 148 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 4:00 | history | edited | user4552 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 3:57 | comment | added | user4552 | @Oaoa: I don't understand your comment. Maybe you could expand it into an answer...? It's not true that decay is not unitary. All processes in quantum mechanics are unitary. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 3:55 | comment | added | FraSchelle | Despite your answer is excellent, it simply answers none of the question of PMay. You could have just started from a historical point of view, saying that energy (exchange) is quantised according to the postulate of quantum mechanics, or Bohr's principle. Then you could have elaborated about the statistical nature of the decay, which is not unitary, and thus much more complicated to understand I believe. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 3:52 | history | edited | user4552 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 72 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 3:46 | history | answered | user4552 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |